Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom311
Melvill, J.1. The Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar being debarred by Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from trying an offence committed in contempt of his own authority, the case of the Queen v. Gaji, wife of Ranu, is, under the provisions of Section 64 of the Code, ordered to be transferred for trial to the Sessions Court of Poona.2. If it were not for the peculiar wording of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we should have hesitated to accept the broad proposition laid down in The Queen v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep. 73), that the offence of giving false evidence is to be regarded as a contempt of Court. But [notwithstanding some rulings of the Allahabad Court to the contrary--Queen v. Kultaran Singh (I.L.R., 1 All. 129) and Queen v. Jugat Mull (I.L.R., 1 All. 162)] we agree with the Madras High Court (see Proceedings, 24th March 1873, 7 Mad. H.C. Rep., Appx. XVII) that the Legislature has, by most inapt words, extended the prohibition contained in Section 473 t...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Bom19
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the District Judge of Thana The appellants (plaintiffs below) allege in their plaint that they and the respondents are fishermen; that, in accordance with the custom of their trade, they have been for years erecting their fishing stakes annually opposite to the village of Yerangal, at a distance of between two and three miles from the coast, those of the respondents being to the north of, and about 600 feet distant from, their own; that in the month of March 1872, the respondents, in addition to their customary stakes to the north, maliciously and wrongfully erected other fishing stakes to the south, at a distance of only 120 feet from those of the appellants, and that thereby they wrongfully disturbed the latter in the enjoyment of their right to fish, and unjustifiably prevented fish from getting into their nets, thus causing them considerable pecuniary loss. They, therefore, claim from the respondents Rs. 3,000 as damage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom462
Bayley, J.1. The objection having now been taken, must, after the short consideration I have been able to give it, I think, be allowed. Section 33 of the High Courts Criminal Procedure Act (X of 1875) enacts that 'The jury shall consist of nine persons, who shall be chosen by lot from the persons summoned to act as jurors.'2. Section 39 enacts that, save as therein provided, the High Courts shall retain all their present powers respecting the summoning empannelling; qualification, challenging and service of jurors, and shall have power to make such rules on these subjects (consistent with the provisions of the Act) as seem to them to be proper; and that 'all rules relating to jurors now in force in the same High Courts shall (so far as they are consistent with this Act) remain in force until repealed or altered by new rules made under this section.'3. The rule as to ballotting for petty juries, which was made in 1842, is to be found at p. 155 of the Collection of Rules and Orders of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Simmons - 96 U.S. 360 (1877) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 360 (1877) United States v. Simmons 96 U.S. 360 CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION BETWEEN THE JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1. An indictment under sec. 3266 of the Revised Statutes charging the defendant with causing or procuring some other person to use a still, boiler, or other vessel for the purpose of distilling, within the intent and meaning of the internal revenue laws of the United States is bad unless it states the name of such other person, or avers that the same is unknown. 2. An averment that such use was "in a certain building and on certain premises where vinegar was manufactured and produced" is not sufficient, as it does not state that vinegar was manufactured or produced there at the time the still and other vessels were used for the purpose of distilling. 3. It is not necessary to aver that the spirits distilled were ...
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!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal293
Richard Garth, C.J.1. As the Magistrate states that riot or affray was imminent, and that ho considered that the direction he gave tended to prevent, and was likely to prevent, a riot or affray, and as the facts stated by the Magistrate show that there were some grounds for the opinion which he expressed, we think that lie had power, under Section 518 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to make the order complained of. This Court, therefore, cannot interfere with it under Section 15 of the Statute 24 and 25 Vict., cap. 104; nor can the Court interfere on any other ground, as by Section 520 the order made is declared not to be a judicial proceeding, however much it may infringe upon what are, or may be (irrespective of this section), the undoubted legal rights of the petitioners....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom610
Melvill, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried in the Sessions Court of Thana for being concerned in the fraudulent cutting and removal of wood from the Government forests in Alibagh. They were all acquitted with the exception of the first accused, Hanmanta, who was convicted on two out of twenty-seven heads of charge. Against this conviction Hanmanta has appealed. On the other hand the Government of Bombay has appealed against the acquittal of Hanmanta on the other charges, and against the acquittal of twelve out of the remaining thirteen accused persons on all the charges. The appeal against Appaji, No. 14, was withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing, it being admitted that the evidence against him was insufficient for conviction. The Government of Bombay succeeded in serving a notice of the appeal on only six out of the remaining accused persons: and, therefore, it is only as against those six persons that we have been able to hear the appeal.2. At a very early stage of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom630
1. It appears to the Court that the provisions of Chapter XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to such a case. Section 415 and the two succeeding sections contemplate proceedings preliminary to and independent of inquiry. Upon general principles where there has been an inquiry or a trial, and the accused person is discharged or acquitted by any Criminal Court, that Court is bound to restore the property, the subject matter of the investigation, into the possession of the person from whom it is taken, unless, as provided for in Section 418, such Court is of opinion that 'any offence appears to have been committed' regarding it, when such order as appears right for the disposal of the property may be made. It is clear that the 2nd Class Magistrate did not consider that any offence had been committed in respect of the property in question: therefore, Section 419 gave the District Magistrate no jurisdiction to interfere. On this ground the Court will cancel his order. Whateve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal278
White, J.1. I have, in the course of the argument, stated my views so fully that it is unnecessary to do more than recapitulate the reasons for my decision.2. Mr. Phillips, on behalf of the prosecution, applies, on affidavit, for one of two orders--either for a rule under Section 147 of the High Courts' Criminal Procedure Act (X of 1875), calling on the Magistrate to show cause why these proceedings should not be transferred to this Court for hearing and final determination; or for a mandamus to compel the Magistrate to commit on a charge of being a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the Penal Code.3. When the case came before me on the first occasion, I was informed that the Police Magistrate, having heard the evidence, did not disbelieve the facts proved, but thought that they did not amount to the offence with which the defendants were charged, and, therefore, declined to commit them for trial. When I heard that such was the nature of the case, I requested Mr. Phill...
Tag this Judgment!