Kolkata Court December 1931 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jaffarul HossaIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal468
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, two appellants are before us: Jaffarul Hossain and Abdul Majid. They have each boon convicted under Section 193, I. P. C, of the offence of perjury and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years.2. It appears that being a party to certain rent suits, one Gagan put in evidence certain documents. These documents included four kabuliyats and they also included some talabbakis, rent-receipts and counterfoils of rent-receipts (checkmuris). The kabuliyats purported to have been executed by certain persons in 1316 B.S. The other documents wore said to have come into existence in connexion with the tenancies on dates subsequent to that year. The prosecution case as against the two appellants was that Jaffarul Hossain in giving evidence said: 'It is not true that those kabuliyats are forged documents'and Abdul Majid said:As regards the kabuliyats ... I wrote and attested them on their respective dates. It is not true that these kabuliyats have been...
Durlav Namasudra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal297
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The appellants in this appeal are four persons named Durlav Namasudra, Kolo Namasudra, Kama Namasudra and Abhoy Namasudra. They were charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201. I. P.C. The jury found them not guilty on the charge under Section 302, I. P.C. and the learned Judge agreeing with and accepting this verdict of the jury acquitted them of that offence. The jury however by a majority of 5 to 4 were of opinion that the present appellants were guilty under Section 201, I. P.C. The learned Judge accepted the verdict of the jury as regards this and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. One of the points taken in this appeal is that the jury having acquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 302, I. P.C. were not competent to find them guilty under Section 201, I. P.C.; in other words, the contention is that the jury having acquitted the appellants under the major charge were ...
Monindra Mohan Biswas Vs. Srish Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Cal464
Pearson, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the complainant against the accused to show cause why an order discharging the accused under Section 253, Criminal P. C, should not he set aside on grounds Nos. 2 and 3 mentioned in the petition.2. It appears that the petition of complaint against the accused suggested offences under Sections 406 and 424 and the burden of the complaint was that the complainant's mother had advanced to the accused a sum of Rs. 1,200 as a contribution to the complainant in a partnership firm carried on with the accused, of which the accused was managing member. Then it was said that a sum of Rs. 400 had been repaid to the petitioner's mother and that the balance of Rs. 800 was withheld and that the accused had absconded in the first place and then he started a new firm and when questioned, he denied all knowledge of the previous firm or of the advance from the petitioner's mother. The Magistrate on this part of the case has rightly dealt with the matt...
Abdul Bari Mia and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Cal182,145Ind.Cas.593
Jack, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the plaintiffs' ten annas share in two howlas for the years 1330 to 1333 B.S. The suits have been decreed for the amount claimed. In these appeals it is urged that as there has been diluvion of portions of the holdings, the defendants are entitled to abatement of rent. It is urged that the case of Rishee Case Law v. Golam Ali : AIR1928Cal548 which was followed by the learned Subordinate Judge was not binding upon the appellants, inasmuch as it can be distinguished from the present suit. The point that arises in these appeals is whether inasmuch as it has been found that all the tenants were not impleaded, a plea of abatement can be put forward by the tenants who are on the record. The case referred to was one under the Bengal Tenancy Act, whereas he present cases being cases brought by some of the landlords, against tenants cosharers only, they are not under the Bengal Tenancy Act, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›