Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom553
Melvill, J.1. This is an application of appeal against an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Kheda made subsequently to the date on which the new Code of Civil Procedure came into force, by which the Subordinate Judge determined two questions arising between the parties to a suit, viz., first, the amount of mesne profits which the plaintiff had recovered from certain mortgaged property subsequently to decree, and, secondly, the amount payable on account of the costs of execution. The final order of the Subordinate Judge was that, out of a sum of money deposited by the defendant, Rs. 8,476 should be paid to the plaintiff in full satisfaction of his decree, and the balance restored to the defendant.2. Against this order the plaintiff wishes to appeal, and the appeal was admitted provisionally, subject to any objection which the defendant might take to its admissibility under the provisions of the new Code.3. After hearing arguments on both sides, we have come to the conclusion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
L.S. Jackson, J.1. 'Trial,' according to the definition in Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, means 'the proceedings taken in Court after a charge has been drawn up.' It is clear, therefore, that Section 221 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which follows Section 220, authorises a Magistrate, although a charge may have been drawn up, to stop further proceedings and commit for trial: for this purpose Section 221 may be regarded as a proviso to Section 220. It may be added that, though the explanation to Section 220 provides that if a charge is drawn up, the prisoner must be either convicted or acquitted, it does not require that the conviction or acquittal should be by the Magistrate who drew it.2. We see no reason, therefore, to quash the commitment....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal573
L.S. Jackson, J.1. It appears to me in the first instance that the Joint Magistrate was in error in making any order in this matter under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It seems to mo that the subject-matter was one to which that section could have no application. There was really no question of possession. The land was in the joint possession of the disputants, and the only question was, whether one of them being a joint owner was at liberty to make use of the land in such a manner as to cause what the other joint owner chose to consider an annoyance, and against the will of that joint owner. In fact, the Magistrate himself, in a passage of his judgment, scorns to furnish an excellent reason why he should not have exercised jurisdiction under that section. Adverting to an argument of the pleader for the accused, as to the right of Coopee Kisto Gossain to forbid this mode of enjoyment, he says: 'I am unable to accede to the application of this doctrine. The vakeel says ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal623
Markby, J.1. The facts of this case do not appear to be susceptible of any doubt. The prisoner was employer of a man, named Behary, his wife Chetya, and his sister Foolcoomaree. Some disagreement appears to have arisen as to the payment of the wages due to this family. In the morning in question the prisoner went to the house of Behary, and called Chetya, the wife of Bohary, and Foolcoomaree his sister, to execute some work on his behalf. They refused and made use of language which, no doubt, was disrespectful. Therefore, the prisoner, with the shoes which he was wearing, commenced striking Chetya about the head and shoulders. Chetya had at that time a child of a few months old in her arms, the head of the child, as she describes it, being either upon or close to her shoulder. One of the blows delivered by the prisoner fell upon the child's head, and, as was almost certain to happen, the child died in consequence.2. The prisoner was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom564
Melvill, J.1. The proceedings in this case have been called for with the view of hearing an appeal preferred by the convict against the finding and sentence of the Sessions Court of Puna. In the meantime the convict has died in Jail.2. The sentence included a fine of one thousand rupees; and as, under Section 70 of the Penal Code, the estate of the deceased convict is still liable for the discharge of this fine, Mr. Vinayak Pandit asks that he may be heard against the conviction.3. Mr. Vinayak holds a power of attorney from the deceased convict, but this power was terminated by the death of the principal. He offers to produce a vakalatnama signed by the convict's representative; but it is clear that such representative has no locus standi in the case. In criminal cases, in which the sentence involves a fine or forfeiture of property, the representative of a deceased convict is, no doubt, interested in procuring a reversal of such sentence, and the Legislature might, if it had seen fit,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal742
Markby, J.1. The short facts of the case, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purpose of disposing of the present rule, are, that, on the 10th June last, a man named Ramgotti Biswas was found lying dead at no great distance from the factory of Lokenathpur. Under the circumstances in which he was found, I think that there was no possibility of doubt, or at any rate there was very good reason to suppose, that the man had either committed suicide or had been murdered. It was therefore a proper case for the institution of an inquiry under Section 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and accordingly, as we must take it now, the Magistrate of the division proceeded to hold this inquiry. Those proceedings lasted a considerable time, and ultimately they were communicated to the Magistrate of the district. The final conclusion to which the Magistrate who held this inquiry came was, that the man had committed suicide, and that he had purposely committed suicide under such circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal756
Prinsep, J.1. It was unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any 'confession' of Chumman Shah, since he was competent on the admission of Chumman to sentence him without any further record (Section 324, Code of Criminal Procedure).[1][1] Section 324: If an accused person admits the commissin ofAccused may be convict- an offence before a Court competent to try him for such offence,ed on his own plea. such Court may convict him on his own admission....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal755
Prinsep, J.1. In addition to the reasons stated by the Sessions Judge, we are of opinion that it was not competent to a Bench of Magistrates to deal with a case under Section 530. A Bench may be empowered under Section 50 'to try such cases or such classes of cases only and within such limits as the Government may direct.' The definition of the term 'trial' shows that it refers only to trials for offences, and not to miscellaneous matters such as those coming within Section 530. So that in this view of the law also the order passed was illegal: it is accordingly set aside....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal91
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The special appeal before us is one of three arising out of three suits brought by different persons, who all allege themselves to be sons of the Rajah of Punchookootee, born of women of low condition, but not dasis or recognised handmaids, who are referred to in the evidence regarding a certain custom to which I shall presently refer. The plaintiff claimed to receive from the defendant Rajah allowance and arrears thereof at the rate of eight annas per day.2. The Rajah defendant, in his written statement, set out that he was a Khetrya by caste; that the mother of the plaintiff (admitting apparently the fact of paternity) was a woman of the Lohar caste, and that consequently plaintiff had no claim to maintenance at his hands; and he then averred that there was a custom in family of that Raj to the effect that when the Rajahs marry, and certain dasis or handmaids come into their family with the bride, if it should so happen that such dasis become pregnant and bear chil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal765
Maclean, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by the Sessions Court of the 24-Pargannas of an offence under the Registration Act, VIII of 1871, and as the trial was held with a jury, the petition of appeal filed on 13th April was directed to show certain errors of law, such as defects in the Judge's charge to the jury. By a subsequent petition of 17th April, the prisoners claim to be heard against the conviction on questions of fact as well as law, as the offence of which they have been convicted is not one of those to which trial by jury has been made applicable by the Government notification of January 1862 (Calcutta Gazette, 8th January 1862, p. 87).2. It has been contended before us by the Government Pleader that the Sessions Judge was competent to try the prisoners with a jury notwithstanding that the offence charged is not included in the Government notification referred to, and therefore the prisoners are not entitled to appeal against their conviction except upon matter of l...
Tag this Judgment!