Kolkata Court December 1938 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.
Kali Charan Sardar Vs. Adhar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal274
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case the petitioners were convicted by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Satkhira under Sections 147 and 323, I.P.C., and were sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 10 each or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 days under each of those Sections. An appeal was preferred against this decision to the Sessions Judge of Khulna. From his letter of reference it appears that the learned Judge was doubtful whether an appeal actually lay to him or not with regard to this matter. He therefore decided to treat the appeal as a petition for revision and he has referred the case to this Court with a recommendation that the sentences passed upon the petitioners should be set aside.2. The first point for decision in connexion with this matter is whether or not an appeal lay to the Sessions Judge against the order passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Satkhira. The only ground upon which it could be held that an appeal : lay to the learned Judge would be to hold that a...
Nanda Ghosh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal321
Bartley, J.1. The appellants in this case were convicted in accordance with the unanimous verdict of the jury under Section 366, I.P.C. Some of them were also convicted under Section 346 and Section 346 read with Section 109, I.P.C. The prosecution case was briefly this : One Khuki Dasi, a married girl whom the jury found to be under 16 years of age, was due to return to her husband's house after a visit to her father in the village of Chorkalgram. On the morning of her return she was dressed up and given all her ornaments to wear. She then went off to see her sister who lived in the village. On the way she passed the house of the appellant, Nanda. He asked her to come inside on the pretext that his wife wanted her. When she went in, he bolted the door and demanded that she should remain with him. In the night he ravished her. Later on, he took her out and was joined by the other three appellants. They took her away, and according to her story, her ornaments were taken off. She was fin...
Jamini Kanta Ghose Vs. Bhabanath Jaisi Barman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal273
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner Tejpur to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 211, I.P.C., should not be set aside. The relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner was given shelter for the night in the house of the prosecution witness Bhabanath. In course of the night, he attempted to take advantage of Bhabanath's wife. As a result of this he was beaten by Bhabanath. He then went to the Police Station and brought an entirely false charge of robbery against Bhabanath. The police reported the case to be a false one and prayed for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 211, I.P.C. The Magistrate called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be prosecuted, and the petitioner then filed what is known as a narazi petition.' The case then proceeded to trial, and the petitioner was in due course convicted. His appeal to the Sessions Judge was unsuccessful. This rule was issued on three grounds : (1) that th...
Ebrahim Mondal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal330
1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 457 and 366, I.P.C. In our opinion, the verdict cannot be sustained, because on a material point in the case the jury was allowed to consider evidence which was wholly inadmissible. It would appear that a main plank in the defence case was that the complainant was a girl of bad character. The defence witness 1 who was Vice-Chairman of the Local Board was actually examined to prove this point. Subsequently however the learned Judge recalled a police officer who was a prosecution witness and allowed him to give evidence after consulting his case diary to the effect that no such statement had been made to him during investigation by the defence witness 1.2. It is perfectly clear that no such use of a statement made to a police officer during investigation is warranted by the provisions of Section 162, Criminal P.C., and as this evidence was in the present case used to demolish the most important portion of the defence case, it must be h...
Kangali Molla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal340
Henderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate, Rajshahi, to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him under Section 182, I.P.C., should not be set aside on grounds 1 and 2 attached to the petition. These two grounds are really tautological and the complaint made by the petitioner is that he ought not to have been put on his trial while the narazi petitions filed by him were undisposed of. We have already, in dealing with another case this morning, said that there are authorities for that proposition. It would certainly be unreasonable to convict a petitioner for giving false information, when there is still a possibility that his own case might be found to be true. We have been through the record and we have found that the petition, loosely called a narazi petition, was actually dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203, Criminal P.C. It was therefore finished and done with, and there was nothing further to prevent the tria...
Devendra Kumar Roy Vs. Syed Yar Bakta Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal220
Derbyshire, J.1. This rule was issued by a Division Bench of this Court at the instance of the complainant, Devendra Kumar Roy, calling upon the opposite par. ties to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be set aside. Notice of the matter was given to the Legal Remembrancer of Assam. The petitioner has appeared before us by counsel as have the opposite parties. The Government of Assam is represented by Mr. S.M. Bose, Standing Counsel of the Government of Bengal. The order complained of was one made by Mr. R.R. Khaund, Magistrate, First Class, of Sylhet, on 31st March 1938 whereby he directed that the opposite par. ties herein, the accused persons then before him, should be discharged under Section 494, Criminal P.C.2. The facts leading up to and in connexion with that order are as follows: Opposite party No. 1, Syed Yar Bakht Chaudhury, was indebted to the complainant petitioner and it was agreed some time in 1936 that that indebtedness should be discharged...
Muradan Sardar Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal313
Nasim Ali, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of 24-Par-ganas dated 25th August 1936 adjudicating the appellant an insolvent under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act on the petition of the Secretary of State for India in Council, the respondent in the present appeal. The acts of the insolvency alleged to have been committed by the appellant, so far as they are material for the purposes of the present appeal, are (1) that the appellant himself applied to be adjudged an insolvent in the fourth Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipur on 29th May 1934, and (2) that notice of this petition for insolvency was served on the respondent on 23rd July 1934. The application by the respondent for adjudicating the appellant an insolvent was filed on 6th October 1934. It is therefore clear that the first act of insolvency was committed by the appellant beyond three months from the date of the presentation of the petition by the respondent. The learned Distric...
Bhabani Charan Law and ors. Vs. Baikuntha Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal341
ORDERSen, J.1. This rule raises a question regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The facts briefly are as follows : The petitioners Bhabani Charan Law, Tarini Charan Law, and Satish Charan Law obtained a decree for rent amounting to Rs. 344-4-9 against their tenants and in execution thereof put the taluk to sale. On 19th June 1937 the sale was held and one Akhoy Kumar Saha was declared to be the purchaser of the taluk for Rs. 580. He paid down the deposit of 25 per cent, of the purchase price in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84, Civil P.C., and was directed to pay in the balance within 15 days, i.e., by 3rd July 1937. Between 19th June 1937 and 30th June 1937 the judgment-debtor applied to the Debt Settlement Board of Fazilpur in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, for a settlement of his debt. The Board sent a notice to the Court of the Munsif where the execution proceedin...
Ganesh Prosad Agarwalla and anr. Vs. Monohar Lal Mullick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Cal202
ORDERMcNair, J.1. This is an application by mortgagees for execution of a decree dated 20th March 1928. The decretal amount was Rs. 24,632-12-9. The mortgagors were three of the sons of Kanailal Mullick, who died on 31st December 1888. Kanailal, by his will, gave a life interest in his property to his widow with remainder to his sons and their heirs. One of the mortgagors, Gokul Lal Mullick, died in 1925, and one of Ms sons, Hariharlal is contesting this application. The widow Uttommoni died on 22nd May 1938. In May 1930, the mortgagees attached the share of the defendants in the compensation money lying with the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal by reason of the compulsory acquisition of Nos. 33 and 33/2, Ratan Sircar Garden Street. In September 1933 the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtors in the compensation money was sold and the proceeds of sale were applied in part satisfaction of the decree. Part of the compensation money was invested in Government prom...
AkramaddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal541
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against an order dismissing summarily an appeal filed by the petitioners before the learned Additional District Magistrate of Tippera. The order in question is dated 9th August 1938. It appears that on 22nd July 1938 the learned Magistrate had heard the pleader for the petitioners and then called for the records for his perusal before definitely deciding whether or not he would admit the appeal. The only ground upon which the rule was issued was that the Court of Appeal below ought to have allowed the petitioners an opportunity of being heard after the records had been received. The, order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the appeal summarily purports to have been passed under Section 421, Criminal P.C. That Section reads as follows:(1) On receiving the petition and copy under Section 419 or Section 420, the Appellate Court shall peruse the same, and if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering it may dismiss the appeal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »