Kolkata Court December 1951 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.
Santa Bala Dasi Vs. Sashi Bhusan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal332
ORDERK.C. Chunder, J.1. This Rule was obtained by a complainant in a criminal case who alleged an offence under Sections 354/448, I. P. C. against three persons who are the opposite parties before me. The Magistrate believed her story, the Sessions Judge has acquitted these three persons. The learned Sessions Judge was under the erroneous impression that anything said by the complainant at or about the time of the occurrence, that is, what formed the part of 'res gestae', was not corroborative evidence. This is a very serious mistaken view of the law which has coloured his decision of this case and for which the decision cannot stand. He obviously did not notice that Lort-Williams J. in requiring corroboration in cases of sexual offence was not dealing with cases under Section 354, I. P. C. Moreover, Lort-Williams J. never required that some other eye-witnesses must actually see the whole occurrence going on. Corroborative evidence may be of any kind which will make the evidence given ...
Mafazzal HossaIn and ors. Vs. Mt. Ayesha Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Cal126,56CWN750
Lahiri, J.1. This is an application in revision at the instance of the tenant and it is directed against an order fixing the standard rent in respect of the premises held by the tenant. It appears that the tenant was holding the premises in question at a monthly rent ofRs. 268-2-0 and on the 6th of February the tenant instituted Case No. 136/13 of 1950 for fixation of the standard rent under the Act of 1948. Under the order of the Rent Controller a local inspection was held by an Inspector. The Inspector submitted his report on the 14th of March, 1950. After considering the evidence in the case and the report of the Inspector the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 247-4-0 with effect from March, 1950. Against that decision both the tenant and the landlord filed two appeals, the tenant's appeal being Appeal No. 1056 of 1950 and the landlord's appeal being Appeal No. 1147 of 1950. The appellate court allowed landlord's appeal and dismissed the tenant's appeal. As a result of ...
Purna Deb Roy Vs. Ram Chandra Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal559,56CWN164
ORDER1. This Rule was issued at the instance of an accused who has been convicted under section 424 of the Penal Code by a Second Class Magistrate of Jalpaiguri and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month. An appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Jalpaiguri, as the District Magistrate.2. The complainant alleged that paddy was removed with a dishonest intention by the accused who was cultivating the land as an 'adhiar.' On the facts, the court has, after considering all the materials, pointed out that the removal was dishonest. I have not been shown any reason why the finding arrived at on the grounds mentioned by the court should not be accepted. Therefore as there was dishonest removal, the court considered that section 424 of the Penal Code was satisfied.3. The main contention was that in view of the West Bengal Act, II (2) of 1950, known as the West Bengal Bargadars Act 1950, the proceedings under section 424 of the Penal Cod...
Miss Shibani Bose Vs. Promotha Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Cal238
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Charter for an appropriate writ for cancellation of an order passed against the petitioner on 14th September 1951 under Regulation 26 (a) of Chapter 23 of the University; regulations and for certain other directions.2. The petitioner is a Master of Arts of the University of Calcutta and was admitted as a student of the University Law College in the year 1950. In 1951 the petitioner was a student in Section 'A' in the Second year class of the said University Law College. It is alleged in the petition that as such student the petitioner was entitled to attend lectures delivered in the said College and to take her seat in the class rooms without any restriction whatsoever, but in July 1951 Prof. Uma Prosad Mukherjee in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights directed the petitioner to occupy a seat in a particular bench and not to use any other seat whatsoever or to sit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›