Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal189
Panckridge, J.1. In this case we granted a Rule upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why an order of the Additional Presidency Magistrate refusing the prayer of the accused to be permitted through his counsel to cross-examine certain prosecution witnesses then present in Court before cross-examination of the complainant should not be set aside.2. The petitioner is charged with an offence punishable under Section 406, I.P.C. The stage which had been reached when the incidents which are the subject-matter of this application occurred was that the prosecution witnesses had been examined in chief and charges had been framed. It appears that the learned Magistrate on 27th September directed the petitioner's pleader to give to the prosecution pleader the names of the prosecution witnesses who had already been examined in chief and whose attendance he required for cross-examination on 31st October. The petitioner's pleader gave the names of 11 out of 14 prosecution witnesses, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal599,145Ind.Cas.569
Patterson, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 215, I.P.C., on the allegation that they together with two other persons, (one of whom was convicted along with them but has not joined in this application), realised a sum of Rs. 31 in three instalments from the complaint for helping him to recover a boat which had been stolen from his ghat. Both the Courts below found that the complainant's boat had in fact been stolen and the circumstances under which the boat disappeared from the ghat clearly point to this conclusion. As regards the taking of the money, it appears that one Mosrabulla, who was convicted along with the petitioners and whose appeal was also dismissed, was the prime mover in the affair, or at any rate the spokesman of the other persons concerned in the affair. Both the Courts below found that the complainant had in fact paid the money to Mosrab as alleged by him, the former. They have found that the first and last instalments of the money were paid in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal353
ORDER1. It appears to us that this rule must be made absolute upon at least one of the grounds on which it was issued. That ground is ground No. 1 and is to the effect that in the absence of a finding by the Magistrate that the petitioners were convening or collecting the assembly, or directing or promoting the procession, the conviction is fit to be set aside. By Section 32, Police Act of 1861, a person opposing or not obeying orders issued under various sections of which Section 30 is one is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding Rs. 200. By Section 30, the District Superintendent of Police may, if certain preliminary conditions are satisfied, require by general or special notice that the persons convening or collecting certain assemblies or directing of promoting certain processions shall apply for a license. It is obvious that the purpose of the section is to give the police control of persons who organize or take charge of processions by requiring them to apply for a license...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal524
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a husband's petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of the adultery of the wife. The learned District Judge of Darjeeling has granted a decree of divorce and the facts appear to be borne out by the evidence so far as the merits of the case are concerned. It is necessary however to point out to the learned District Judge that he has not properly dealt with the question of domicile of the parties. Unless the parties are of Indian domicile, they do not come under the jurisdiction conferred by the Indian Divorce Act, but under a different jurisdiction altogether. In his petition the husband alleges that he was born in British India and has always resided there and is at present residing at Kalimpong. In his evidence, he says: 'I am a Christian, I was born in the Dooars, British India'. This Court has pointed out before, for the benefit of the learned District Judges, that evidence such as this is not proper evidence of domicile. There are many Europeans wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal687
Mukerji, J.1. This case stands free from those considerations which might perhaps arise in a case where a cosharer landlord purchases a non-transferable occupancy holding held jointly under him and his cosharers and then seeks to resist the claim of his cosharers on the ground that they too are in exclusive possession of a portion or portions of other joint properties. In this case the defendants who were complete strangers purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding from the previous tenant and thereafter, though within a short time of the purchase, acquired a small share in the superior interest, thus becoming a cosharer landlord. The other landlords then instituted the present suit to recover joint possession with the defendants to the extent of their share. The suit has been resisted on the ground that the said cosharers themselves are in exclusive possession of other joint lands.2. That a cosharer landlord making a purchase of a non-transferable occupancy holding would ordinari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal192
Panckridge, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the petitioner calling upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan to show cause why an order made by the Sessions Judge of Burdwan who allowed an appeal against an order of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Burdwan and directed under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., a complaint to be lodged to the effect that the petitioner had committed offences punishable under certain of those sections of the Indian Penal Code to which Section 195, Sub-section (1), para. (e), Criminal P.C., applies should not be set aside. It appears that an application was made to the Assistant Sessions Judge of Burdwan who was the successor of the Assistant, Sessions Judge who tried the case in connexion with which the offences are said to have been committed to make a complaint under Section 476. This the learned Assistant Sessions Judge refused to do. An appeal was made to the sessions Judge under Section 476-B with the result that the order refusing to make a complaint was se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal344
Costello, J.1. This matter comes before us on a reference by the District Judge of Jalpaiguri, under Section. 14, of the Legal Practitioners Act of 1879. It appears that H who is a pleader practising at Alipurduar, while acting on behalf of a man named Bhojai Christian of that place in connexion with an application for remission of what is described as a jotedari donation, made a statement in the presence of the Tahasil Officer of Alipurduar who was dealing with the matter, as it appears in a judicial or a quasi judicial capacity, as a, revenue officer, which statement was to the effect that if Rs. 5 had been paid to the Peshkar of the tahsil office, the remission would have been granted. The Peshkar concerned not unnaturally took exception to that remark and construed it, as indeed it might well have been, art imputation against his honesty and integrity in the execution of his office. The Peshkar instituted a case in the criminal Court against H under the provisions of Section 500, P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal515
Mitter, J.1. This Rule was issued on ground 1 stated in the petition and is directed really against the order of the appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 379, I.P.C. The complaint is that the Additional District Magistrate was not justified in not giving any reason for dismissing the appeal summarily and further that the appeal should not have been dismissed summarily as the defence raised a question of the right of the accused in the disputed land from which paddy was cut. The defence of the petitioners was that they were in possession of the plot in dispute and that they cut away ripe paddy grown by them and that the opposite party at the instigation of his brother Serajul Huq started a false case solely with the object of creating false evidence in support of his title to the land to which neither Serajul nor his wife had any share. Causa has been shown in this Rule by Mr. Talukdar and he contends that it is not necessary for the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal614,145Ind.Cas.824
Mitter, J.1. This Rule arises in the following circumstances: It appears that a burglary is alleged to have been committed in the house of the petitioner on the night of the 6th February last. The petitioner lodged an information with the Daulat-kha police on the morning following the night of the alleged occurence suspecting three persons: Elahi Buksh, Rahim Buksh and Hadu. The Sub-Inspector of Daulat-kha who investigated the case reported it to be false and asked for sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182, I.P.C. The petitioner produced his witnesses before the investigating officer and he states that he was altogether ignorant of the result of the investigation until the warrant was issued against him under Section 182, I.P.C. The petitioner further states that on receipt of the warrant he appeared in Court and filed a naraji petition against the report of the police which was put up before the Subdivisional Officer of Bhola on 15th March 1932. The Sub-divi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal658
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 6,895 for principal and interest upon a time-barred promissory note. On 22nd June 1927 the plaintiff lent Rs. 5,000 to the defendant who by his promissory note in the usual form promised to pay that sum with interest at 9 per cent per annum to one S.C. Dutt, the plaintiff's brother, who endorsed the note over to the plaintiff. On l0th January 1931 after the promissory note had become time-barred defendant wrote to the plaintiff a letter in the following terms:My dear Kelu,I have been expecting you for some time, I am quite willing to renew the note come and see me with it either tomorrow evening or on Monday, Phone me beforehand.Yours sincerely, (Sd). R.C. Sen.2. The only question that arises in this case is whether the suit is barred by limitation. To determine this it has to bo considered not whether this letter is an acknowledgment in writing within the meaning of Section 19, Limitation Act, for such an acknowledgment must be m...
Tag this Judgment!