Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1919Cal872,48Ind.Cas.510
Richardson, J.1. The petitioners are persona against whom proceedings have been taken under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. A Rule was issued upon the District Magistrate to show cause why those proceedings should not be quashed on the grounds, firstly, that in consideration of certain proceedings under the Criminal Tribes Act and of the result of the inquiries made into certain cases of alleged dacoity, there was no material disclosed in the Police report on which the proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, could be based and, secondly, that in view of the sentences of imprisonment which the petitioners Nos. 1, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are undergoing under the provisions of the Criminal Tribes Act the proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, against them cannot stand. In his argument before us to-day the learned Pleader for the petitioners has confined himself to those petitioners who have been registered under Section 4 and the following sections of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal560,1961CriLJ617,65CWN977
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. On the view expressed by a Division Bench of S.K. Sen, J. and K.C. Sen, J. by their order of reference dated the 31st August. 1960 the learned Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench for determination of the following points raised on the order of reference :' (1) Does the Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Spe-cial Courts) Act, 1949, to whom the case has been allotted by notification under Section 4 (2) or the Act need a petition of complaint for taking cognizance of the case or does he take cognizance when on receiving the Government notification and the record of the case from the Court of the Magistrate, he applies his mind to the-facts of the case; and (2) Was this point rightly decided in the un-reported decisions in two Criminal Appeals-Nos. 377 of 1958 with the title Sudhanshu Ram Guha v. The State and 393 of 1959 with the title Nemai Chandra Paul v. The State being cases decided by a Division Bench of N.K. Sen, J. and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE The Honble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE And The Honble JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY APO No.106 of 2017 With ACO No.158 of 2016 And ACO No.3 of 2017 In CP No.452 of 2013 LAXMI NARAYAN UDYOG LIMITED (IN LIQN) AND PANKAJ KUMAR AGARWAL -VERSUSOMENDRA KUMAR CHOWDHURY AND OTHERS For the Appellant: Mr Ratnanko Banerji, Sr Adv., Mr Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, Adv., Mr Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv., Mr Jayanta Samanta, Adv., Ms Sutapa Mitra, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr Mainak Bose, Adv., Mr Anurag Bagaria, Adv., Mr Aniruddha Poddar, Adv. For the Official Liquidator: Ms Ruma Sikdar, Adv. Hearing concluded on: July 18, 2017. Date: July 24, 2017. SANJIB BANERJEE, J.: The issue involved herein is simple, but the matter assumes a complex character in view of a seemingly well-settled order of a Division Bench of this court being found to have been rendered per incuriam by a subsequent Division Bench and the opinion of such subsequent Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT164(HC)
Rajendra Nath Sinha, J.1. This is to consider an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by an order dated 12.3.2003 passed by Sri Sukumar Chakraborty, Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1994 affirming the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by Sri M. Murmu, Executive Magistrate, Midnapore in M.R. Case No. 104(S) of 1986 under Section 147 of Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Dwaraka Prosad Agarwal (since deceased) to remove the illegal construction or to demolish the construction of brick wall and iron gate of the premises.2. In short the petition is that R.S. Plot No. 868 of Mouza Kharagpur Khas Jungle measuring an area of 0.10 acre of land belonged to one Gorelala. On 7.7.1959 he sold 7 decimals out of 10 decimals of land to one Pyarelal and the rest 3 decimals of land was sold to Badami Devi on 25.1.62. Pyarelal purchased Badami's 3 decimals of land on 23.6.1964, thus, became the owner of 10 decimals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal199,1961CriLJ472,64CWN899
Banerjee, J. 1. This is a reference made to a Special Division Bench, under the second proviso to Rule 1, Chapter II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. The particular question of law referred for determination is :'Whether Rule 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Rules 1950 is ultra vires?'2. Rule 9 above referred to is quoted below : '9. In making inquiries under the Act, the Controller, the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, the District Judge or the Judicial Officer to whom the case may be transferred under the provision of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 3,908, for the regular trial of suits, the substance only of the evidence being recorded as in unappealable cases and shall record in brief 'the reasons for his findings.'3. I need refer to the facts of the case briefly, so as to understand how this reference came to be made.4. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1913)ILR40Cal477
Holmwood, J.1. The question has arisen on a rule issued by us to show cause why an order made under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the Shahabad district should not be set aside, whether the Criminal Bench has jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of Civil and Revenue Courts made under that section. The rulings are very conflicting on the point and it seems necessary to have the matter settled by a Full Bench. The difficulty has been got over on more than one occasion by the appointment of a Special Bench by the Chief Justice to hear such applications, but it is obvious that this causes unnecessary delay and embarrassment to applicants, and there seems to be no reason why the matter should not be settled once for all.2. Our own view of the matter in a recent case was that there was no question as regards the jurisdiction of the High Court in sanctions under Section 195. There it is expressly laid down that any sanction given or refused u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal150
Harries, C.J.1. These are two petitions for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash proceedings which have taken place and which are taking place before a Special Judge at Alipore under the West Bengal Special Courts Act of 1950. The two petitions came before Bose J. for hearing. In the view of the learned Judge the petitions raised points of great importance and difficulty and he accordingly referred them to the Chief Justice for decision by a larger Bench. This Bench of five Judges has been constituted to hear and decide the petitions.2. Civil Rule No. 942 of 1951 has been preferred by one Anwar Ali Sarkar who with forty-nine other persons was tried by a Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Special Courts Act of 1950 (Act X of 1950)upon charges of murder, conspiracy to murder to commit grievous hurt with deadly weapons, and to commit mischief. There were also charges under the Explosive Substances Act and a charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1586
Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.1. These five appeals, (1) Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1996 (Ranjit Mondal and Sajal Barui alias Papa v. State), (2)Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1996 (Alok Saha alias Toto v. State), (3) Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1996 (Debashish Dey v. State), (4) Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1996 (Subhrasil Ray alias Raja v. State) and (5) Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1996 (Samar Saha alias Euro v. State), have been preferred against the same judgment dated January 10, 1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat in Sessions Trial No. 4(9) of 1994. In the impugned judgment the learned Judge convicted the appellant Sajal Barui alias Papa Under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., 201, I.P.C. and Under Section 120-B, I.P.C. and sentenced him to death by hanging and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- i.d., to suffer R.I. for one year on his conviction Under Section 302/ 34, I.P.C., and sentenced him to R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to R.I. for six months on his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal261,1963CriLJ579,67CWN297
P.B. Mukharji, J.1.This is a petition by Ranjit Kumar Ghosh under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is directed for the release of a person called Sanat Chandra Bose, son of a well-known Solicitor of the City, Akshoy Chandra Bose, deceased. The main ground of the petition is that the said Sanat Chandra Bose was being unlawfully and illegally detained at a place called Lumbini Park said to be a Mental Hospital and Clinic run by the Indian Psycho-analytical Society, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The main contention of the petitioner is that the said Sanat Chandra Bose is not a lunatic at all.2. There are four respondents to this petition. The first two are respectively the Secretary of the Indian Psycho-analytical Society and the Superintendent of the Lumbini Park (respondents NOS. 1 and 2): the third respondent is Rabindra Nath Mitra alleged to be the guardian of the person of said Sanant Chandra ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This is an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was instituted by the de facto complainant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, being BGR Case No. 256/2011 now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is the contention of the petitioner/de facto complainant that an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the OP No. 2 herein along with his mother before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore which was registered as Criminal Misc Case No. 766/2011. The said Misc Case was fixed for hearing on 11.02.2011. The said application was rejected being not pressed by the Learned Advocate of the Opposite Party No. 2 and his mother. 2. By suppressing the fact of rejection of the said application, the Opposite Party No. 2 and his mother filed another application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!