Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-23-1940
Reported in : AIR1940All263
Collister, J.1. This is a reference arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 1939. There are three appellants and they have appealed from their conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. Their names are Baldeo, Lakhan and Tirmal. Evidence was admitted at the trial to the effect that Tirmal, while in custody of the police, stated to the second officer that the knife with which he and the other two appellants had murdered the deceased was at his house and that he could give it to the police officer if he were taken to the house. It is in evidence that Tirmal was thereafter escorted to his house and he unearthed a knife from under a heap of rice straw. The knife had stains of blood on it which was subsequently found to be of human origin. The following question has been referred to this Full Bench:What portion, if any, of the statement to the effect that 'the knife with which he and Baldeo and Lakhan, had murdered Maharaj Singh was at his house under a heap of pyal' alleged to have been made b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-04-1940
Reported in : AIR1940Mad465; (1940)1MLJ719
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Three matters have been placed before this Full Bench and they can be dealt with conveniently in the same judgment as they all involve the same question. The first case arises out of a suit which was tried by the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The plaintiff contended that a post card which had been put in evidence by the first and second defendants on the allegation that it had been written by the third defendant to the second defendant was a false document. Subsequently the plaintiff filed an application asking the Court to prosecute the three defendants under the provisions of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 463, 464, 471, 473 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court dismissed the application and the Subordinate Judge's decision was upheld by the judgment of the District Judge on appeal. The plaintiff has now asked this Court to revise the order of the District Judge under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-03-1940
Reported in : AIR1941Bom156; (1941)43BOMLR110
Broomfield, J. 1. These are references from the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad in fifteen cases in which the Additional Stipendiary First Class Magisstrate, Ahmedabad, convicted one C.C. Banker, said to be the Secretary of the New Manekchowk Mill at Ahmedabad, of offences under Sub-section 159 and 160 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (Bom. XVIII of 1925). In nine cases the prosecution was under Section 159 which renders punishable the act of causing or allowing the water of any sink or sewer or any other liquid or other matter which is or which is likely to become offensive, from any building or land under the control of the accused, to run, drain, or be thrown or put upon any street or open space. In the other six cases the charge was under Section 160 which makes it an offence for the owner or occupier of any building or land to keep or allow to be kept for more than twenty-four hours, or otherwise than in some proper receptacle, any dirt, dung, bones, ashes, night-soil, etc., in or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-14-1940
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR742
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Presidency Magistrate, Second Additional Court, Mazagaon.2. The facts are that on January 27, 1940, the present applicant was directed to pay Rs. 25 a month to his wife and Rs. 25 a month to her in respect of his son for maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The maintenance was to ran from the date of the petition, so that there were considerable arrears. The application seems to have been fought very bitterly, the husband maintaining that he had not got any means. However, the Magistrate did not believe that story. The maintenance was not paid, and on February 17, an application was made for a distress warrant, and on February 23 a warrant was issued. That was under Sub-section (3) of Section 488 which provides that if any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-24-1940
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR1193
Wassoodew, J.1. The petitioners Vishnu Tatyaba Naik and Shridhar Raoji Patil, who were respectively Sub-Overseer of the District Local Board, Nasik, and elected member of that Board and Chairman of the Works Committee, were prosecuted before the Resident First Class Magistrate of Manmad in the Nasik District for offences of cheating and falsification of accounts and abetment thereof, punishable under Section s 420 and 477A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused had dishonestly taken false measurements of certain work of repairs on the KherdisathaNagarsul Road in the Yeola Taluka under their charge and fraudulently obtained from the President of the District Local Board Rs. 275-7-0 by tendering a bill with the measurement sheet containing the false measurements attached to it duly signed by accused No. 1 and countersigned by accused No. 2.2. The accused raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to try them on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-31-1940
Reported in : AIR1940Bom266; (1940)42BOMLR478
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application purporting to be made under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the object of which is to induce the Court to expunge certain observations criticising a witness made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Poona in a criminal appeal which came before him. There has been no application in revision against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, and of course no appeal lies; nor has the Court thought fit on its own motion to call for the record, and in granting a rule, this Court queried whether there was jurisdiction to entertain an application to expunge words from a judgment, when the Court is not called upon to pronounce upon the merits of the decision itself. It is obvious that, if the jurisdiction exists, its' exercise must place the Court in an anomalous position. The Court must go through the record of a case in which it is not called upon to act judicially at the instance of a party who is not aggrieved by the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-06-1940
Reported in : (1940)2MLJ346
Horwill, J.1. This was a suit on a mortgage. Defendants 1 to 9 are mortgagors or their descendants and defendants 10 and 11 are purchasers of the equity of redemption in execution of a small cause decree held by themselves. The suit was allowed and defendants 10 and 11 have appealed.2. The principal contention in the lower Court - as well as in this Court - is that the suit mortgage was discharged by the execution of a contract of sale on the 8th October, 1933. The tenth defendant obtained his decree on 23rd June, 1933; but before he could attach the property in execution of his decree, the contract relied on by defendants 10 and 11 had been executed. It is not now denied that the plaintiff enjoyed the crop raised in fasli 1344. The attachment was on 17th February, 1934, and the tenth defendant took delivery of the land on 23rd November, 1935, while the crop presumably raised by the plaintiff's tenants was still on the ground. That crop was the subject of criminal litigation and, final...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-02-1940
Reported in : AIR1941Mad26; (1940)2MLJ556
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit riled by respondent against the appellants for damages for defamation. The facts may be stated very briefly. Respondent, a Medical Practitioner in Madras took some diamonds from the appellants a firm of jewellers, on approval in April, 1936. On 25th May appellants presented him with an invoice for their cost. By 27th September, the diamonds had not been paid for. On that day the appellants sent a letter to the Inspector of Police, Flower Bazaar Police Station, which is claimed by respondent to be defamatory, as being equivalent to a charge against him of criminal breach of trust. In their written statement appellants contended that this communication was privileged, having been sent bona fide with the sole purpose of protecting their own interests. The learned City Civil Judge held that the occasion was privileged and if the letter were in fact bona fide the suit must be dismissed, but he held further that the letter did not state the true fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-01-1940
Reported in : AIR1940Cal286
Edgley, J.1. This rule arises with reference to a complaint filed against the petitioner and another person in the Court of the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Khulna with a view to their prosecution under Sections 465, 467, 471 and 193, Penal Code. The petitioner was a co-mortgagee in respect of certain property and he had applied to a Debt Settlement Board under Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, for the settlement of the debt owing to him. The allegation against him is to the effect that, in collusion with another person, he forged the thumb impressions of his co-mortgagees on the application. The debtor then filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Khulna with a view to the prosecution of the petitioner and the person who is alleged to have assisted him in the forgery, but the learned Magistrate discharged both the accused persons on the ground that the Debt Settlement Board must be regarded as a 'Court' and there had been no complian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-02-1940
Reported in : AIR1940Cal540
Sen, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Faridpur. The facts giving rise to it are as follows: The accused Sitanath Kundu and four others were tried and convicted by Mr. M.C. Mukherjee, Magistrate, Madaripur, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each. When the trial commenced, Mr. Mukherjee was a Magistrate having second class powers. The learned Magistrate heard arguments in this case on 27th July 1939. It is now admitted that before this date but after the evidence had been concluded the learned Magistrate was invested with first class powers. After hearing arguments on 27th July 1939, the learned Magistrate adjourned the case and delivered judgment on 31st July 1939 convicting the accused and passing the aforesaid sentence. It is thus quite clear that on the date on which the sentence was passed, the learned Magistrate was a Magistrate having first class powers. The accused appealed from the decision of the learned Magistrate to the District Magistrate. The appea...
Tag this Judgment!