Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-29-1918
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 : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-26-1918
Reported in : (1918)20BOMLR629
Shah, J.1. This appeal has been set down for further orders in view of the letter received from the Government of Bombay, inviting our attention to the repeal of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 471 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Luancy Act of 1912 and of the last twelve words of Sub-section (1) of the same section by Act X of 1914, to a letter of the Government of India referred to in the preamble of the Government Resolution No. 6484 of the l6th of September 1913, to Section 24 of the Lunacy Act (IV of 1912) and to Circular No. 76 B of the Criminal Circulars of this Court and asking us to pass final orders.2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader in support of the view expressed in the letter. In the course of the argument the Government Pleader has pressed for an order that the appellant in this case be ordered to be transferred to the Lunatic Asylum at Thana or such other asylum as may have accommodation for him after the necessary arrangements have been made.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-03-1918
Reported in : AIR1916All179; (1919)ILR61All116
Piggott, J.1. In this case the three applicants, Mathura, Ganga Din and Jagannath, have been convicted of an offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, No. III of 1867. The one and only question raised by the application is whether the trial of the applicants was or was not vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity in connection with the constitution of the court which tried them for this offence. The court in question was a Bench of Honorary Magistrates sitting at the town of Kaimganj. I find that the Local Government, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had appointed three gentlemen, Mr. Jan Alam Khan, Mr. Nazir Ali Khan and Pandit Chaube Piari Lal, to be a Bench of Magistrates exercising jurisdiction in this particular place. It is not denied that the offence for which the applicants were tried was one within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Bench, or that the sentence passed was one within the competence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-03-1918
Reported in : AIR1918All56; 48Ind.Cas.344
Piggott, J.1. In this case the three applicants, Mathura, Gangadin and Jagannath, have been convicted of an offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, III of 1367. The one and only question raised by this application is, whether the trial of the applicants was or was not vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity in connection with the constitution of the Court which tried them for this offence. The Court in question was a Bench of Honorary Magistrates sitting at the town of Kaimganj. I find that the Local Government, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had appointed three gentlemen, Mr. Jan Alam Khan, Mr. Nazir Ali Khan and Pandit Chaube Peare Lal, to be a Bench of Magistrates exercising jurisdiction in this particular place. It is not denied that the offence of which the applicants were tried was one within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Bench, or that the sentence passed was one within the competence of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-30-1918
Reported in : (1918)35MLJ686
ORDERNapier, J.1. This is an application for revocation of sanction to prosecute the petitioner for an offence under Section 182, I.P.C., in that he gave false information to a public servant. The petitioner wrote to the District Magistrate informing him that one Soora Chinna Venkata Reddi had in his custody without license 3 pieces of arms and submitted to the District Magistrate that the possession of such weapons ' by such a person in our village will be dangerous to our lives and that they are without any license.' The house of Venkata Eeddi was searched and no arms were discovered. Venkata Reddi then put in a petition, to the District Magistrate under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code asking for sanction for the prosecution of the person who gave the information for an offence under Section 182, I.P.C. The District Magistrate granted the sanction. The petitioner then appealed to the Sessions Judge who dismissed his petition holding that the order was passed by the Distric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-17-1918
Reported in : (1919)ILR61All231
Piggott, J.1. These are applications of two persons, Sarju and Lallu, who have been required to furnish security to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. They were brought before a Magistrate along with four other persons, the case for the prosecution being that these six men were individually habitual thieves and house-breakers and also were associated together in the matter under inquiry, The judgment of the trying Magistrate and the appellate judgment of the learned District Magistrate show that the police had beyond question very substantial reasons for the action taken by them. The six men had been arrested together under circumstances of grave suspicion and the circumstances of their arrest constituted in themselves evidence of association. As against four out of the six men there was overwhelming evidence of their being habitual criminals as alleged by the prosecution. Such being the case the evidence of habitual association on the part of Lallu and Sarju with these cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-07-1918
Reported in : AIR1919All220; 49Ind.Cas.654
Piggott, J.1. These are applications of two persons, Sarju and Lallu, who have been required to furnish security to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. They were brought before a Magistrate along with four other persons, the case for the prosecution being that these six men were individually habitual thieves and housebreakers and also were associated together in the matter under enquiry. The judgment of the trying Magistrate and the appellate judgment of the learned District Magistrate show that the Police had beyond question very substantial reasons for the action taken by them. The six men had been arrested together under circumstances of grave suspicion and the circumstances of their arrest constituted in themselves evidence of association. As against four out of the six men there was overwhelming evidence of their being habitual criminals as alleged by the prosecution. Such being the case, the evidence of habitual association on the part of Lallu and Sarju with these cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-22-1918
Reported in : 46Ind.Cas.167
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a case taken up in revision by Ayling, J., on a perusal of the calendar. These persons were put up by the Police before the Joint Magistrate of Viziyanagaram in order that the Magistrate might take proceedings against them under Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code, requiring them to execute bonds with sureties for their good behaviour. Now under Section 109, security can be required either on the ground that a person is taking precautions to conceal his presence and is taking such precautions with a view to committing an offence, or on the ground that a person has no ostensible means of subsistence, or cannot give a satisfactory account of himself. Then Section 110 provides that certain specially qualified Magistrates may require the execution of a similar bond with sureties for good behaviour if a person is by habit a robber, house-breaker or thief or a receiver of stolen property by habit, and so on. Now the Joint Magistrate has passed his order not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-06-1918
Reported in : 48Ind.Cas.981
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused under Section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Both the complainant and the accused were diamond merchants, the former carrying on business in Bombay and the latter in Madras. The case for the prosecution is that complainant used to send on approval diamonds to the accused in parcels bearing prices, weights in carats, and numbers, that accused used to communicate his acceptance of the price or make counter-offers, that in the event of the parties agreeing as to the price the same was paid by the accused either in cash or by means of Hundis according to the terms under which they carried on business, and that the accused got from the complainant four packets of diamonds marked 4695, 4696, 4665 and 4666 which were sent to him at his request, which packets he pledged before any property in them passed to him without the knowledge or consent of the compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-02-1918
Reported in : AIR1919All400; 50Ind.Cas.994
Piggott, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur had, in this case, an application before him under Section 195, Clause 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an order represented to him as being an order of sanction under the same section passed by a Magistrate of the first claas subordinate to him, The person against whom that order had been passed had a statutory right to ask the Sessions Judge, as the superior Court, to re consider the Magistrate's order of sanction and to revoke the same if it found that sufficient cause was shown. I think the learned Sessions Judge has been, to some extent, misled by the fact that one or more of the pleas taken before him were pleas against the regularity or validity of the order of sanction as passed. Even with regard to these pleas, it strikes me that the learned Sessions Judge took up too rigid and technical an attitude. If, as a matter of fact, the Magistrate's order of sanction was bad in law, the sooner that point was adjudicate...
Tag this Judgment!