Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 45Ind.Cas.113
Barnes Peacock, C.J.1. An advertisement publislied in a newspaper for a demonstration against a Judge for acts done in Court may be a contempt of Court as well as defamation, although it cannot be said that in every case a demonstration got up in order to obtain an expression of public opinion concerning the acts of a Judge would bo a contempt, [p. 125, col. 1.]2. If anonymous letters are sent to the press containing false statements), the press is responsible for them if the name of the author is not given up. [p. 144, col. 2.]3. To say that a sentence is 'cruel' may be a con-tempt of Court, though it would be no contempt if the remark is merely that, the sentence is a severe one. [p. 142, col 2; p. 143, col. 1.]4. Per Macpherson, J.--The High Court has power to proceed by way of contempt oven when the contempt is not committed in Court or during the pendency of a suit. [p. 145, col. 2.]5. Per Curiam.--The fact of his making an apology does not entitle the person charged with contempt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal357
Phear, J.1. This case now comes before us by reason of its having been removed to this Court from the Court of the Magistrate of Calcutta, Northern Division, by an order made under Section 147 of the High Courts' Criminal Procedure Act.2. The learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the Crown, objected that the order had been irregularly made, because the Crown was not served with notice of the application for it, and was not given an opportunity of being heard upon that application. We are of opinion, however, that when, as in the present case, a conviction has been arrived at by the Magistrate, and the petitioner is actually suffering imprisonment there under, it is within the discretion of this Court to order for sufficient prima facie cause shown, on the application of the prisoner, that the case be removed, without notice to the Crown. We intimated our readiness to give time to the Standing Counsel, if he required it, for the purpose of this hearing, but he said he was quite prepare...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal220
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am happy to say, that since last evening, some papers have been discovered, which will render any further discussion of this rule unnecessary.2. It appears, that in 1869, in a case which in its circumstances very closely resembled the present, it was decided by no less than nine Judges of this Court, that the proper course was to apply to the Court, sitting in its judicial capacity upon affidavits, in the usual way; and I am extremely glad to find that no less distinguished a Judge than Mr. Justice Louis Jackson, was one of the Judges who took part in that decision. This was the case of The Queen v. Pogose referred to by Mr. Woodroffe. An application in that case was made by Mr. Herschel, the Officiating Sessions Judge of Dacca, to the Registrar of this Court, suggesting that an order should be obtained for the transfer of the proceedings to the High Court for trial. I will read his letter, dated the 11th of June 1869.I have the honour to request that you will l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal283
Macpherson, J.1. It seems to us to be clear that this case came before the Magistrate of the 24-Pergunnas under Section 295 of the Criminal Procedure Code,[1] and that it was in the first instance dealt with by the Magistrate under that section. That being so, his proper and only course was to proceed under Section 296, to report the case for orders to the High Court, which (under Section 297) might have ordered the accused persons to be tried, if of opinion that they had been improperly discharged.2. A case (re Sidya bin Satya) quoted by Mr. Prinsep in his latest edition of the Criminal Procedure Code, as having been decided by the Bombay High Court, has been referred to as showing that the Magistrate was right in the course he adopted. But that case is not reported in the regular reports of the Bombay High Court: nor have we been able to find any report of it. The full facts with which the Bombay Court had to deal are not before us, and we are unable to say how far the Court may real...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal281
Macpherson, J.1. Let the Magistrate be directed to re-arrest Gobin Tewari and Jodoo Lall, and keep them in custody till the hearing of the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal118
Mitter, J.1. I am also of the same opinion. It seems to me that the effect of the Government Resolution, dated 1st of January 1873, was to confer upon Mr. Carnegy powers under Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code within the Subdivision of Jorehaut only. That being so, it cannot be said that he was 'transferred to an equal or higher office' of the nature of that which he held in the district of Seebsaugor; because, supposing he was transferred within the meaning of that Section and that he never vacated his appointment, the office to which he was transferred in the district of Kamroop is neither equal to nor higher than that he held in the district of Seebsaugor. A reference to Sections 27 and 28 of the Code[1] will show that the powers of a Magistrate of a division of a district are higher than those of a Magistrate of the first class not in charge of any subdivision. I am, therefore, of opinion that, under the Section (56) referred to above, Mr. Carnegy did not continue to exerc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal23
Macpherson, J.1. This is an application to the High Court under Section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The petitioner, Bholanath Sen, has been convicted by a Bench of Magistrates at Midnapore on two charges of breach of trust, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to two periods of imprisonment, amounting, in all, to two years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of the fine six months additional imprisonment.3. We are asked to quash the conviction on the ground of various substantial illegalities and irregularities, most of which are set forth in the petition presented to this Court.4. The seventh of the grounds stated in the petition is, that it was illegal and improper that a certain Mr. Larymore should have been one of the Bench of Magistrates who tried this case. It appears to us that this is a good ground of objection, and that, under the circumstances, the presence of Mr. Larymore, who had a substantial interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal451
Macpherson, J.1. This is an application to quash an order of the Judge of Gya, under Section 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code, sending the plaintiff in a Civil suit and two of his witnesses to a Magistrate for enquiry into charges of giving false evidence, &c.;2. I say the order was made under Section 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because although Section 16 of Act XXIII of 1861[1] gives Civil Courts powers similar to those conferred on Civil and Criminal Courts alike by Section 471, there can be no doubt that the whole law is now embodied in Section 471, and our jurisdiction to interfere in the matter is not affected by a suggestion that the order in question was, or might have been, made under Section 16 of Act XXIII of 1861[2] and not under Section 471.3. The learned Judge stated the facts of the case and continued.4. It is contended for Baijoo Lall and Juggernath that the Judge had no power to make that order, inasmuch as he never made any preliminary enquiry and had no suf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal110
Markby, J.1. The Sessions Judge is quite right in supposing that this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of Magistrates, as to the amount of security to be taken in cases of this kind. The Magistrate is in a much better position than this Court for judging what would be the proper amount of security, which must vary with the danger to be apprehended and the means of the parties. But the Magistrate cannot make an order that is altogether unreasonable. Here the Magistrate, although there has been as yet no breach of the peace, and apparently no very strong determination to resort to violence, has required the parties to enter into bonds amounting altogether to upwards of Rs. 60,000. The parties do not appear to be wealthy; and had the security ordered been really required, in all probability it could not have been furnished. We find, however, that one of the parties, who has been accepted as surety for Es. 5,000, is described as a kotwal and another as a mookhtear, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal274
Jackson, J.1. During the argument we disposed of the first part of the objection taken by Mr. Ghose, who has, at our request, carefully and feelingly advocated the case on behalf of the prisoner. That objection was, that we had not before us an appeal such as is contemplated by Section 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as the petition of appeal had not been preferred by the Government 'prosecutor or other officer, specially or generally appointed in this behalf.' It appeared, and still appears to us, that, under the authority conveyed by the Secretary's letter to the Legal Remembrancer, the appeal was duly made by one of the Government pleaders, and has been regularly and properly sustained before us by the counsel instructed by, and appearing on behalf of, the Legal Remembrancer.2. Mr. Ghose next contended, that in the first place Section 272 was not meant to apply, and did not apply to cases where the accused person has been tried and acquitted by the verdict of a jury; an...
Tag this Judgment!