Kolkata Court August 1948 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.
AshiruddIn Ahmed Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ255
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal by an accused who has been convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, for the murder of his five-year old son and sentenced to transportation for life.2. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Judge gave correct directions on the question whether the accused was entitled to the protection of the provisions of Section 84, Penal Code.3. The prosecution case was that the accused sacrificed his son as korbani in the mosque and having done so went straight and informed his uncle Mafizuddin p W. 2. The police were duly informed and the accused was taken into custody, and confessed.4. His story in his confession was this:I have sacrificed my son Jinu aged 5 or 5 1/2 years. On the expiry of the day of Sunday I dreamt a dream at night that I bad been in heaven. As I had got up two steps I heard 'Your sacrifice (korbani) was of no use; you will have to sacrifice your own son,' In the following, morning I searched for a castrated goat...
Hasan HossaIn and ors. Vs. the King.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ567
ORDER1. This rule is against an order of conviction under Section 103 (in), Indian Merchant Shipping Act. The fourteen petitioners were sentenced by a Presidency Magistrate to detention till the rising of the Court and to forfeiture of one day's pay.2. The petitioners are Somali seamen who were signed on as members of crew of a Nor-weigian ship, S. S. Vest, on 15th August 1947. They had each an agreement with the Captain, one of the terms of which is that the seamen will have all rights in accordance with the British Merchant Shipping Act.3. Whilst the ship was in Calcutta there was some trouble with these members of the crew and the Captain alleges that they refused to work. Entries in helot wore made accordingly. The Captain was had to sign the crew off but had some difficulty with the local police because they would not allow him to sign off the ores as they had not been signed on in Calcutta.4. We may add that there were five members of the crew who had actually signed on in Calcut...
Manmatha Nath Sen Vs. Gopee Ballav Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1951Cal170
Das, J.1. The material facts leading up to the present application may be shortly stated as follows: One Kumar Jamini Ballav Sen, a wealthy zamindar and proprietor of what is commonly known as the Dimla Raj Estate, died an or about the 19th July 1929 leaving him surviving his widow Sm Provabati (Deft. No. 4) 4 sons Gopee Ballav (Deft. No. 1), Jyotish (Deft. No. 2), Rukmini (Deft. No. 3) and the plaintiff Manmatha and a daughter Sm. Sushilabala (Deft. No. 5). On the 18th October 1934, Manmatha the youngest son filed a suit in the Alipore Court, against his mother and three brothers for partition of the properties left by his father. By an order made by this Court on the 20th January 1935 that Alipore suit was, with the consent of all parties transferred to this Court. The petition for transfer was 'intituled in the matter of the Alipore suit and in the matter of clause 13 of the Letters Patent' The transferred suit has since been mark-ed as extra-ordinary Suit No. 4 of 1936, The late Mr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamala Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1948
Reported in: AIR1952Cal383
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) Income-tax Act, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.2. The question relates to the allowable depreciation for the charge-year 1942-43.3. In the preceding charge-year, (1941-42), the allowable depreciation was found to be Rs. 87,244/-. The written down value was Rs. 9,08,003/-. In that year, there was resultant loss, even without taking into consideration the depreciation allowance. The depreciation allowance of Rs. 87,244/- was carried forward to the charge-year 1942-43 as unabsorbed depreciation.4. A question arose whether the written down value of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation in the charge-year 1942-43, should be taken to be Rs. 9,08,003/- less Rs. 87,244/- or Rs. 9,08,003/-. The income-tax authorities contend for the former figure, the assessee for the latter.5. It is no longer disputed that the present controversy should be determines on the terms of Section 10 (5) (b) as amended by Income...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta Vs. Kamala Mills Ltd. CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR130(Cal)
This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.The question relates to the allowable depreciation for the charge year 1942-43.In the preceding charge year (1941-42), the allowable depreciation was found to be Rs. 87,244. The written down the value was Rs. 9,08,003. In that year, there was resultant loss, even without taking into consideration the depreciation allowance. The deprecation allowance of Rs. 87,244 was carried forward to the charge year 1942-43 as unabsorbed depreciation.A question arose whether the written done value of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation in the charge year 1942-43 should be taken to be Rs. 9,08,003 less Rs. 87,244 of Rs. 9,08,003. The Income-tax authorities contend for the former figure, the assessee for the latter.It is no longer disputed that the present controversy should be determined on the terms of section 10(5)(b) as amended by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act (XX...
Ramnath Agarwalla Vs. the King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ270
ORDERSen, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, for not following the provisions of Cl 5, Bengal Sugar Licensing Order, 1943, and he his been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three weeks. The-petitioner is the Managing Director of Goenka and Company Sales Limited who deal in sugar. The charge against him is that he did not keep registers properly so as to show accurately the amount of sugar in stock and that thereby ho contravened the provisions of Clause 5 of the afore. said Bengal Sugar Licensing Order.2. The defence taken inter alias was that at the time the incorrect entries in the registers were made the petitioner was on leave and not at Darjeeling where the registers ate kept and that the contravention took place without his knowledge. He also took the plea that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention by giving written instructions, Ex. A, to the subordinate office...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Harold Joseph Osm ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ548
Chakravartti, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal, against the sentence passed on the respondent, Harold Joseph Osmond, at a Sessions trial held on the Original Side of this Court on 9th and forth February 1948. The respondent was charged under three counts under the Arms Act, of one of which he was acquitted but he was convicted of the other two. The learned Judge sentenced him to a fine of as. 500 under one of the counts of which he was convicted, but did not pass any separate sentence on the remaining charge proved against him, The present appeal is directed only against the sentence imposed. The view of the Crown is that the sentence is unduly lenient and ought to be enhanced.2. The learned Junior Standing Counsel frankly stated at the very outset that he had considered Section 411A, Criminal P. C, under which this appeal had been preferred and had formed the opinion that the appeal was incompetent. In our opinion, that is cle...
A.C. Samaddar and anr. Vs. Suresh Ch. Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ368
ORDERSen, J.1. This rule was obtained by two persons A. O. Samaddar. and Satyendra Nath Das against whom complaint had been filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Contai, alleging that the two petitioners had cheated them. The fact alleged against them may shortly be put thus: The petitioners sold ampules of quinine to the complainants declaring that those ampules contained a certain percentage of quinine and that fact was noted on the ampules themselves. Money was paid to the petitioners on this basis. It was subsequently discovered that the ampules contained very much less quantity than they were stated to contain. Thereupon the complainants filed a complaint charging the petitioners with cheating. The learned Magistrate without examining the complainants passed an order purporting to be one under Section 166 (3),Criminal P. C, directing the police to treat the com. plaint as a First Information Report and to start investigation. The police carried out the order and mad...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›