Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-16-1894
Reported in : (1894)ILR21Cal732
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question we have to consider is whether the executor appointed by a Hindu testator who made his will in 1889, and died in 1891, can, after he has obtained probate, transfer the estate, effects and interests, vested in him by virtue of such probate, to the Administrator-General under Section 31 of the Administrator-General's Act (II of 1874). Mr. Justice SALE has come to the conclusion that he cannot, as he thinks that the estate of a Hindu is not within any of the provisions of the Act, except Sections 17 and 1.8, which are expressly made applicable to such estates. The argument on both sides has dealt, not only with the Act upon which we have now to put a construction, but with the history of the office of Administrator-General, and with the conditions under which the various Acts by which it has been constituted have been passed, and in what I have to say on the subject I propose to follow the same course.2. The office was first constituted by Act VII of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-23-1894
Reported in : (1894)ILR21Cal955
Beverley, J.1. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of fourteen Kabulis, who have been convicted by a Jury in the Court of Session at Hooghly, of offences under Sections 148 and 325, read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, and the appeal is preferred on the ground that the verdict is vitiated by reason of misdirection by the Sessions Judge in his charge to the Jury.2. The fourteen appellants were committed to the Sessions Court upon the following charges: 'First, that you, on or about the 20th day of April 1894, at Bhadresar P. S., Serampore, committed murder by causing the death of Khan Ghalib, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognisance of the Court of Session. Secondly, that you, on or about the same day and at the same place by causing death of Khan Ghalib, committed culpable homicide, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognisance of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-13-1894
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal131
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This is a rule obtained on behalf of one Chandi Pershad to show cause why certain proceedings taken against him by the Deputy Magistrate of Monghyr should not be quashed, or why the case should not be transferred to some other district. The facts are these: On 5th May last Chandi Pershad applied to the Municipal Commissioners of Monghyr for a license for two carriages and six ponies, making the usual statement as required by Section 133 of the Bengal Municipal Act III of 1884 of the Bengal Legislative Council. A license for two carriages and six ponies was granted, but at the same time the statement was sent for verification to the overseer, who, on the 7th May, reported that Chandi Pershad had eight ponies and one horse. Thereupon the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners on the 8th May made an order to 'prosecute Chandi Pershad for making false statement in the schedule regarding the number of animals'. On the following day Chandi Porshad ...
Tag this Judgment!