Kolkata Court September 1936 Judgments
Dr. Ranga Lal Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Cal788
Henderson, J.1. These two appeals have been heard together. They originally on for hearing before myself sitting alone. But in view of the importance of some of the points raised, I thought it desirable that they should be heard by a Division Bench. The appellant in Appeal No. 582 is orie Dr. Ranga Lal Sen. He has been convicted of offences punishable under Sub-section 44 and 45, Calcutta Police Act. The other appellant is one Mr. Jacob who was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 45 of that Act. The facts are extremely simple. The alleged common gaming house is situated in a consulting room at the Eastern Drug Stores, 17 Park Street. The appellant Sen is one of the Doctors who may be consulted by patients at that place. P. W. 1 Sergeant Clarke, came with a search warrant from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr. Duckfield, and searched the place on the 29th June last. His evidence is that he found both the appellants sitting at a table. Sen was filling in a betting slip ...
Tag this Judgment!Brindaban Chandra Dutt and Co. Vs. Bissesswarlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Cal10
ORDERR.C. Mitter, J.1. This is an application by Messrs. Brindaban Chandra Dutt & Co. under Section 19, Arbitration Act, for stay of the aforesaid suit which has been instituted on 6th July 1936 by the opposite party, Bissesswarlal, on his own behalf and as karta of a joint family against the applicant. In the said suit, Bissesswarlal claims damages for breach of contract. The contract is contained in indent No. 0460 dated 20th February 1936 by which the opposite party agreed to buy from the applicant waterproof rain coat cloth described in three items. According to the applicant, he offered delivery of the goods described in item 3, but the opposite party refused to accept delivery on the pretext that they were not of the quality contracted for. The rest of the articles were not tendered to the opposite party. The plaint proceeds on the footing that the articles which were tendered for delivery by the applicant was not of the contract quality and that the defendant failed to deliver t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal39
R.C. Mitter, J.1. In this case five persons, Ram Sarup Singh, Lal Chand Pathak, Brijkishore Kuar, Jagannath Kholey and Ramadhar Chowbey have moved against the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Burdwan by which he has upheld the convictions and sentences passed on these persons by Mr. H.R. Sen, Magistrate of Burdwan having First Class powers. Ram Sarup Singh has been convicted under Sections 420/120-B, 411/120-B, 411 and 420/ 109, I.P.C. He has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 420/120-B and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 411, I.P.C. These two sentences are to run concurrently. No separate sentence has been passed under Sections 411/120-B and 420/109, I.P.C. The other four petitioners before us have been convicted under Sections 420/120-B and 411/120-B and have been sentenced under the former section to one year's rigorous imprisonment, no sentence being passed under the last mentioned section. Against these five ...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal54
Henderson, J.1. The petitioners were all convicted of an offence punishable under Section 4, Gambling Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. They appealed to the learned Sessions Judge without success and then obtained this Rule on grounds 5, 6 and 7 mentioned in the petition. Now, the first two of these grounds really go together. The point is this: The prosecution cannot succeed in this case unless they can rely upon what is practically the presumption laid down in Section 6 of the Act. Before this comes into play at all there must be a search under the. provisions of Section 5. Now, the search warrant directed the search of the house of a man named Umda Khalifa. The case of the petitioners has always been that they were actually playing cards in the house of his brother.2. Before the prosecution could rely on Section 6 it is absolutely necessary for them to show that the place where the petitioners were found gambling really was the place named in the warrant. Now,...
Tag this Judgment!Gangeya Narotham Shastri Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal45
R.C. Mitter, J.1. In this case the appellant before us has been convicted under Section 84, Port Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The subject matter of the charge is a wall which has admittedly encroached into the river Hooghly beyond the highwater mark. The proceedings were started on the basis of a report submitted by Mr. Wilcox on the 21st June 1935. He stated in that report that while surveying in that locality he noticed that the construction was in progress at the place, that is to say, the wall was being actually built and the base of the wall was below the highwater level because in the report he says that the outer wall is approximately 14 feet above the standard level of the Kidderpore Dock, the high-water level being 1509 feet above that standard level. In the said report he also stated that the owner has assured him that he would submit a plan and apply for sanction before proceeding further with the wall. The defence that was taken is that there was a wall at t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Sardar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Cal22
1. The six appellants have been convicted of various offences in connexion with an incident which is said to have taken place with regard to the wife of prosecution witness No. 1. Very briefly the prosecution case was as follows: The. appellants Bhola Sardar, Sahizuddin, Amar Dokandar and Oizuddin forcibly broke into the house of the complainant and carried her off. They then and there raped her in a field. She was subsequently taken to the house of the appellant Kasamuddin and raped there by him. Finally she was taken to a hut in a field where she was raped by Kasimuddin and other people and eventually she was made over to the appellant Akbar Sarkar who took her to his house and there raped her.2. We admitted this appeal on the grounds of misjoinder. Now it would be quite impossible to try all these charges together unless it could be said that all these offences were committed in the course of the same transaction. It might be said with some show of reason that the act of the first f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›