Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-01-1922
Reported in : 72Ind.Cas.624
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is a case referred by the Sessions Judge of Ganjam. The Town Sub-Magistrate of Berhampore purporting to act under Section 231 of Act XIV of 1920 (Madras Local Boards Act) not only directed a toll gate lessee to pay up fees due from him to the Ganjam District Board, but fined him Rs. 25 as well. The Sessions Judge is of opinion that the levy of fine is illegal and I quite agree with him.2. The point of some difficulty raised is, whether this Court, sitting in the exercise of its powers of criminal revision, has authority to deal with such a case; in other words, whether the Magistrate is, when he takes action under Section 221 of Act XIV of 1920, an inferior criminal Court within the meaning of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The word 'Magistrate' is not defined in Act XIV of 1920, consequently, I must fall back on the definition in the Madras General Clauses Act, viz., 'any person exercising all or any of the powers of a Magistrate under the Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-27-1922
Reported in : (1923)ILR45All162
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This and the connected Second Appeal No. 1425 of 1921 relate to a grove situate in the suburbs of Benares. In execution of a decree obtained against one Parsotam, this grove was sold by auction on the 10th of February, 1919, and was purchased by Madho Lal. Madho Lal brought a suit for recovery of possession of the grove by virtue of this auction purchase. A counter suit was brought by the appellant, Gopi Das, in which he claimed possession of the grove, at least in respect of one half of it. It appears that some disputes arose between Parsotam and Gopi Das before the auction sale, and a case was instituted in the Criminal Court under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That case was compromised on the 28th of May, 1918, and in that compromise it was stated that Parsotam Das was to remain in possession of a part of this grove and Gopi Das was to remain in possession of another part. The Criminal Court decided the case under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-27-1922
Reported in : 76Ind.Cas.527
1. This and the connected Second Appeal No. 1425 of 1921 relate to a grove situate in the suburbs of Benares. In execution of a decree obtained against one Personam, this grove was sold by auction on the 1oth of February 1919, and was purchased by Madho Lal. Madho Lal brought a suit for recovery of possession of the grove by virtue of this auction-purchase. A counter-suit was brought by the appellant, Gopi Das, in which he claimed possession of the grove, at least in respect of one-half of it. It appears that some disputes arose between Parsotam and Gopi Das before the auction-sale, and a case was instituted in the Criminal Court under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That case was compromised on the 28th of May 1918, and in that compromise it was stated that Parsotam Das was to remain in possession of a part of this grove and Gopi Das was to remain in possession of another p Article The Criminal Court decided the case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-11-1922
Reported in : (1923)44MLJ450
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is by the 3rd accused in S.C. No. 3 of 1922 on the file of the Special 1st Class Magistrate, Tirur against his conviction and sentence therein. The Public Prosecutor opposes it on the ground that Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1922 against that conviction and sentence has already been dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court. The facts are that Criminal Appeal No. 395 was presented by the accused under Section 420, Criminal Procedure Code through the officer in charge of the Jail, where he is, on 6th May, 1922 and was dismissed under Section 421, as out of time, by Krishnan, J. sitting as Vacation Judge, on 2nd June, 1922. The accused) presumably in ignorance of this, presented the present appeal on the 17th July, 1922 on the re-opening of the Court through counsel. It is not disputed that, unless the decision of 2nd June, 1922 can on some ground be disregarded, we are debarred from disposing of the present appeal on the merits.2. We have been asked first to me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-11-1922
Reported in : 72Ind.Cas.599
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is by the third accused in S.C. No. 3 of 1922 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate of Tirur, against the conviction and sentence therein. The Public Prosecutor opposes it on the ground that Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1922 against the conviction, and sentence has already been dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court. The facts are, that Criminal Appeal No. 395 was presented by the accused under Section 420, Criminal Procedure Code, through the officer in charge of the Jail, where he is, on 6th May 1922, and was dismissed under Section 421, as it was out of time, by Krishnan, J., sitting as Vacation Judge on 2nd June 1922. The accused, presumably in ignorance of this, presented the present appeal on 17th July 1922 on the re-opening of the Court through Counsel. It is not disputed that, unless the decision of 2nd June 1922 can, on some grounds, be disregarded, we are debarred from disposing of the present appeal on the merits.2. We have been asked...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-20-1922
Reported in : AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-01-1922
Reported in : 71Ind.Cas.662
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside.2. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal commented upon the procedure which had been adopted at the trial and said that 'the three sets of cases had a checkered life,' and it is impossible for this Court to view the procedure adopted at the trial with approval. The matter, however, has been simplified by reason of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, and it is not now necessary for me to deal with the question of the joint trial or whether it was proper to take the depositions in one case and have them copied and used in another case. Speaking generally, in my judgment, that is not a course which should be adopted in trials of criminal cases. The learned judge in the Appeal Court acquitted one of the accused of all the charges and he acquitted the accused Mazahar Ali of two of the charg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-16-1922
Reported in : AIR1922Cal59,67Ind.Cas.177
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Reference to a Full Bench by my learned brothers Newbould and Suhrawardy, JJ. The questions which are submitted are: 1.When in proceedings under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, arising out of an alleged obstruction of a way used by the public, the defendant sets up a claim of right which is found by the Magistrate to be made in good faith, is the Magistrate's jurisdiction entirely ousted?2.Or can the Magistrate, if he does not think this claim well-founded though he considers it made in good faith, allow the defendant a reasonable time to assert this claim by a civil suit and if he does not go to the Civil Court within such time or fails there, can the Magistrate continue the proceedings under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code?Was the case of Belat Ali v. Abdur Rahim 8 C.W.N. 143 : 1 Cr. L.J. 70 giving effect to the dictum in Luckhee Narain Banerjee v. Ram Kumar 15 C. 604 at p. 570. 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 960 rightly decided?2. The following fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-05-1922
Reported in : 72Ind.Cas.340
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. I have had the opportunity of reading the judgments of my learned brothers who are more familiar with the practice of this Court than I am and with those judgments in general I agree. I have little to add.2. I think it should be made clear that the fact that this Court sanctions a prosecution, is no intimation to the Magistrate that this Court thinks that there is a case to go to a Jury or that he thereby is in any way relieved from his duty of considering whether the accused ought to be committed for trial or not. This view is not at all inconsistent with the duty of this Court to refuse sanction, if it is clearly of opinion, on the evidence-before it, that no reasonable Jury should convict.3. There is one matter in the judgment of my brother Coutts-Trotter, J., on which I wish to reserve the expression of my view until the matter directly arises, namely, whether the learned Judge was justified in ordering the document in question to be brought into Court on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-15-1922
Reported in : AIR1924Cal317,75Ind.Cas.145
1. This is a Reference under the provisions of Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Sessions Judge of Hooghly with reference to the case of ten accused persons, now before us, who along with eight others were tried before a jury. With regard to the latter, the verdict of the jury has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused persons were tried on charges under Sections 147, 304 read with Sections 149, 325 read with Section 34 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the verdict of the jury with reference to the ten accused persons before us and has, under the provisions of Section 307, referred the case of the ten accused persons to this Court for its orders.2. The facts have been very fully and exhaustively set out in the learned Sessions Judge's charge to the jury and also in the letter of reference to this Court and, therefore, it will not be necessary for us to repeat the same in detail. Briefly stated, ...
Tag this Judgment!