Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1928Cal339
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him should not be set aside on ground 2 mentioned in the petition. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 161 read with Section 213, Act 6, 1901 (Assam Labour and Emigration Act) and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. The order of conviction and sentence was passed, in the first instance, by a Magistrate at Dibrugarh, and the same has been confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts. Ground 2 of the petition upon which this Bale has been issued runs in these words:For that the assumption of the learned Sessions Judge that a recruiting Sardar must accompany every batch of coolies and the imputation of the petitioner's guilty knowledge therefrom are wrong.2. There was a considerable amount of confusion in the, proceedings that took place in the Courts below in connexion with this case and a perusal of the record discloses cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1910)ILR37Cal27,5Ind.Cas.495
Coxe and Ryves, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 164 of the Assam Labour and Emigration Act, 1901, for inducing one Lal Bahadur Kurmi to emigrate from Arrah, in contravention of the notification published under the Act, prohibiting all persons from recruiting, inducing, engaging or assisting any persons to emigrate from any district in Bengal. The petitioner obtained this Rule from this Court on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the facts found did not constitute the offence of which the petitioner had been convicted.2. It appears that the accused induced Lal Bahadur to leave Cawnpore in order to go to Fiji to work. On the way 'they stopped at Arrah, and then the accused told Lal Bahadur that he would have to go to Sylhet, and placed him in a train in charge of a sardar for the purpose of ultimately going to that place.3. It has been argued on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1900)ILR27Cal455
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The petitioner before us was charged with a breach of the Coolie Emigration Act, and was acquitted on the ground that he was not responsible, being a servant of some one who might have transgressed the law. The Magistrate, in passing this order, was inclined to proceed against the master, but, before so doing, he wished to ascertain clearly whether there were sufficient grounds for his taking action, that is to say, for his proceeding under Section 190(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take cognizance of the offence. He accordingly examined the petitioner on oath, and he thereupon summoned the master to appear before him and answer a charge under the Coolie Emigration Act. At the trial, the petitioner was examined as a witness, and he then gave evidence contradicting the former statement that he had made to the Magistrate. He has accordingly been prosecuted and convicted by the Magistrate for having intentionally given false evidence by reason of such c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1912)ILR39Cal344,15Ind.Cas.1007
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The petitioner, Uttam Chand, has an extensive business in excise shops, of which lie holds a considerable number in nine districts of this province, including a gania shop at Koilwar, in the district of Arrah. His Koilwar servant, Lakhichand, was convicted, under Section 46 of the Bengal Excise Act (V of 1909), for being in possession of 2 1/2 seers of ganja which lie was attempting to transport from Arrah district to Bindhyachal. Lakhichand confessed his guilt.2. The question now is whether the conviction of the petitioner, the master of Lakhichand, can be supported on the language of Section 56 of the Act. The section is as follows: 'When any offence punishable under Section 46 is committed, by any person in the employ and acting on. behalf of the holder of a license granted, under this Act, such holder shall also be punishable as if he himself had committed, the offence, unless he establishes that all due and reasonable precautions were exercised by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.165
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Sylhet who, agreeing with both the assessors as regards the charge under Section 376 against Amanullah and under Section 342 against Amanullah and Sujatullah, and apparently differing from the assessors as regards the charge under Section 379, has convicted, Amanullah and Sujatullah under Section 342, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment each, Amanullah under Section 376 and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment and Sujatullah under Section 384, extortion, and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. Now, the first point which we have to animadvert upon in this conviction, is that there was no charge of extortion under Section 384, and it is wholly illegal to punish a man for a grave offence, involving many totally different ingredients to a charge of theft, on a charge under Section 379. Such a conviction cannot stand for one moment. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal216,71CWN82
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. As I said in my Order on the application for contempt arising out of the instant proceeding, earlier, the dispute to which the instant proceeding relates has behind it a history of constitutional importance, which must be recounted in order to appreciate the nature of the present proceeding. 2. It is a dispute relating to the division between India and Pakistan of the Berubari Union No. 12, a group of villages lying within the territory of India, for the purpose of ceding half of it to Pakistan in pursuance of the Agreement, which was entered into between the two Governments on the 10th September, 1958. Some doubts having arisen as to whether this could be effected without a proper legislation, the President referred the question for the opinion of the Supreme Court, under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court gave its opinion as reported in : [1960]3SCR250 . The Supreme Court opined that since the Agreement between the two Governments, referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)2CALLT359(HC)
1. We have heard an appeal from an ad-interim order passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge on the 24th of June 1997 as modified by His Lordship's order dated 30th June 1997.2. The appeal has been heard out on the most expeditious basis because by those two orders His Lordship directed to the effect that the two appellants should not leave Calcutta unless security to the extent of Rs. 50 lakh is furnished in the case of such of those two persons.3. The only provision on the basis of which such an order of semi- arrest can be supported is contained in Order XXXVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with an arrest before Judgment.4. That rule is preceded in the Code by Section 94 which permit the making of such an arrest.5. Both the appellants who have been arrested are foreign nationals. The authority which has obtained the arrest of these two persons is the Port of Calcutta, more accurately the Trustees for the Port of Calcutta operating under, inter alia, the Major Port Trus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal369,1963CriLJ9,67CWN206
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner, A.H. Magermans, is a Belgian national. He arrived in India, on November 23, 1947, with a Belgian Passport and a Visa for India issued by the Visa section of the British Embassy, at Brussels. The visa was issued either at the request of the Head of the Catholic Church St. Michael of Brussels (as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition, affirmed by Ajoy Kumar Dey, Inspector of Police Security Control) or at the request of the Head of the Society of Jesus, residing at St. Michael's College, Brussels (as the petitioner affirms), in order to enable the, petitioner to take up missionary work in India. After arrival in India, the petitioner did some work connected with the Jesuit Mission at Calcutta and Ranchi and thereafter severed his connection with the Mission, in or about February 3, 1952, and adapted himself to secular life. The fact of this severance was brought to the notice of the officer-in-charge of the Department of Registration ofForeigners, in C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1913)ILR40Cal650
Mookerjee J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for house rent. To appreciate the question of law which calls for decision, it is necessary to state briefly the undisputed facts. The house originally belonged to Kanailal Ghosh, who transferred it on the 10th October, 1893, to Dayamoyee Dasee and her brother's son Hara Chand Jalal. The purchasers, while in possession of the house, leased it to the first, defendant on the 1st January, 1901. Shortly after, Dayamoyee Dasee died, on the 25th February, 1901. On the 20th July, 1908, Hara Chand Jalal transferred the house to the plaintiff, on the allegation that, upon the death of his father's sister, Dayamoyee Dasee, he had taken by inheritance her half share of the property and had thus become full owner thereof. On the 8th September, 1908, the plaintiff commenced the present suit for rent. Besides other defences not material at this stage, the first defendant resisted the claim on the plea that Dayamoyee Dasee was a prosti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1929Cal599
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, we have to deal with a husband's petition for divorce filed in this Court under the Indian Divorce Act, on 20th January 1928. The petitioner was apparently born in a part of Poland, which has been referred to as being at that time German Poland. It appears that when he was very young, only 2 or 3 years old, his family removed to Berlin and when the petitioner was about 27, namely, in 1912, he went to London. In 1914, he was married in London to the respondent. It appears that for a time he went to New York, and afterwards to Honolulu. In 1916, he went to New Zealand, where, apparently, his wife's people had some property or connexions. His evidence is that he had been endeavoring to do business in New Zealand in connexion with exportation of goods from Germany. But, as the political condition after the war was not favourable for that kind of business, he, in 1923, abandoned all hopes of continuing that business in New Zealand and accordingly he removed with...
Tag this Judgment!