Privy Council Court June 1936 Judgments

(Raja) Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb Vs. Gour Hari Mahato and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1936PC258

LORD THANKERTON: These appeals are taken against two decrees of the High Court dated 8th August 1933. Two questions are involved, the first being the question of res judicata. The High Court declined to allow the appellant to go into the question of res judicata on the ground that it had not been properly raised by the pleadings or in the issues, particularly in the issues. It seems to their Lordships that the High Court was right in this view, because it was necessary for the appellant, if he were going to make use of the judgment in the suit of 1900 as res judicata to identify the subjects in dispute in the present case with the subjects which in that case were held to belong to the Rajah and not to the tenants. The other point is a mere matter of procedure, the question with regard to the use of Ex. 17 as secondary evidence. That does not appear to their Lordships to be a question of fact, but rather a question of procedure and the orders made by the High Court were to remit the sui...

Nazir Ahmad Vs. King-emperor

Court: Privy Council

LORD ROCHE: This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Lahore dated 10th October 1935 which affirmed a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Lyallpur dated 16th April 1935 convicting the appellant of dacoity with murder under S.396, I. P. C., and sentencing him to death. The appellant was convicted mainly, if not entirely, on the strength of a confession said to have been made by him to a Magistrate of which evidence was given by the Magistrate but which was not recorded under S. 164, Criminal P. C. It was not contended before their Lordships that the conviction could be supported if the evidence of the confession was inadmissible. Nor was it disputed that if the evidence was inadmissible, then, in the circumstances of this case, by well recognised principles laid down by this Board, it would be proper humbly to advise His Majesty to interfere [see 40 IA 193 (1), following 12 AC 459 (2).] Therefore the sole question for decision is ...

Mahadeo Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT: This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leave from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji sitting at the Lautoka Circuit Court dated 17th May 1934 by which the appellant was found guilty of the murder of a boy named Ramautar, and being a young person within the meaning of the Fiji Ordinance No. 37 of 1932 was, pursuant to S.12, sentenced to be detained as the Governor might direct. The appellant is in fact about 16 years old. Ramautar, the boy alleged to have been murdered, was about 13 years old. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 6 of 1875 the trial was held before the Chief Justice of Fiji, who is the only Judge in the Island, sitting with assessors, and by S. 29 of the same Ordinance the decision was vested solely in the Judge. By virtue of S. 32 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1875 the trial, for all purposes material to the present appeal, fell to be governed by the English common law. The materials before their Lordships on the hearing of the appeal consisted of the o...