Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad835; 165Ind.Cas.860
ORDER1. These criminal revision cases arise out of conviction under Section 18 (1), Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 926, 929 and 930 of 1935 are in respect of the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Guntur dismissing the appeals against the order of conviction by Mr. Strathe, District Magistrate of Guntur; and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 927 and 928 of 1935 relate to convictions by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. The petitioners were convicted of the offence of having distributed unauthorized news-sheets in Guntur and Madras respectively and were sentenced on conviction to simple imprisonment for six months. The points arising in these cases have been dealt with in one common argument and can be disposed of in one judgment.2. The petitioners in all these cases were members of a body known as the Labour Protection League; and as regards the Guntur prosecution, one of them is the president, another the secretary and the third the jo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal106
Brett and Geidt, JJ.1. The present appeal is against an order passed under the Indian Companies Act, VI of 1882, and it is preferred under Section 169 of that Act. A rule was also granted on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The appeal and the rule have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment.2. It seems that Purna Chandra Chakravarti, one of the depositors in the Dacca Loan Office Company, Limited, applied to the Civil Court under Section 131 of the Indian Companies Act for the winding up of this company. The ground on which he based his petition was that he was a depositor of more than Rs. 600 in the company; that hg had made a demand for Rs. 200, and that it had not been complied with within the time mentioned in the Act. He further stated that the company was in a very embarrassed state, that Rs. 83,000 due to the company had been barred lay limitation, and that Rs. 28,000 due to the depositors could not be paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
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
Reported in : 81Ind.Cas.353
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for review of a criminal case on the certificate of the Advocate-General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner Barendra Kumar Ghosh was tried on the 16th and 17th August at the Fourth Criminal Sessions of this year, by Mr. Justice Page and a Special Jury, on a charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the first count and guilty to the second count. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder, with the result that the accused was convicted and sentenced to deatli under Section 302. On the 22nd August, an application was made on his behalf to the Advocate-General for a certificate under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. On the 27th August, the Advocate-General heard Counsel for the prisoner in support of the application. On the 29th August, the Advocate-General granted a certificate in the following terms:2. 'Certificate of the Advocate General of Bengal u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1924)ILR51Cal980
Mukerji, J.1. In the present trial, before the first juror was called, Mr. H.M. Bose, appearing on behalf of the prisoner, claimed that a majority of the jury should be Indians on the ground that the prisoner is an Indian British subject, and based his claim upon the mandatory provisions of Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. A.K. Basu, appearing on behalf of the Crown, opposed the application on the ground that the claim was not entertainable in view of the fact that it was not put forward before the committing Magistrate. A similar application made on behalf of the prisoner, at the commencement of the trial which has just now proved abortive, was refused by me; but, as on that occasion I did not give my reasons for the order that I then passed, I have allowed the prisoner to raise the point again, and have considered the matter further; but I do not find any reason to alter the opinion which I then formed.2. At the outset I may say at once that I quite agree with the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1925)ILR52Cal1
Chatterjea, J.1. What is meant by the words 'business connection' in Section 41?2. The expression is not defined, but it must mean doing business through a broker or agent or some such person.3. The Advocate-General (Mr. S. R. Das) and the Standing Counsel (Mr. B. L. Mitter), for the Secretary of State. English decisions would hardly be of any assistance to the Court, for the simple reason that the scheme of the English Acts was entirely different from that of the Indian Acts. The Madras decision in Board of Revenue v. Madras Export Company (1922) I. L. R. 46 Mad. 360. was based on the supposition that the law is the same in England and in India. The Indian Act, though to some extent modelled on English statute, materially differs from the latter in several matters. The English Act, as was pointed out in Colquhoun v. Brooks (1889) 14 App. Cas. 493., imposes a territorial limit with regard to income chargeable to income-tax---either (2) that from which taxable income is derived must be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1925)ILR52Cal347
Walmsley, J.1. The appellant, T. C. S. Martindale, was committed for trial by a Presidency Magistrate and tried at the High Court Sessions before Mr. Justice Pearson, on three charges relating to forgery, and one charge of cheating. We are told that the majority of the jurors consisted of Europeans, but that result was achieved by process of challenging, and not as a consequence of the provisions contained in Section 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was found guilty on all the charges; by a verdict of seven to two on the forgery charges, and unanimously on the charge of cheating. He was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment on each charge; the sentences to ran concurrently.2. Some time later, the Chief Justice was moved to appoint a Bench to hear his application for leave to appeal. The matter was referred to the Criminal Bench (then consisting of Newbould and B. B. Ghose JJ.) and leave was granted, under Section 449 (1) (c), one of the new clauses added by last year's Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 83Ind.Cas.273
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal, under the provisions of Section 66 of Act XI of 1922 and Section 51 of Act VII of 1918.2. The Rogers Pratt Shellac Company is incorporated in the United States of America with its head quarters in the city of New York. The Company have a branch office in Calcutta to buy gum shellac and other Indian products, and a factory at Wyendhamgunj in the United Provinces. No sales are conducted in India by the Company: their transactions are limited to the purchase of shellac and other goods, some of which are purchased on account of a certain Gramophone Company which pay the Company a fixed percentage on the purchase: plus expense, while the balance is sold in the open market.3. Income tax was assessed for the year 1921-22 as also supertax, and the tax was paid under protest on the 6th May, 1922.4. They were similarly assessed for the year 1922-23, and the tax was paid on the 29th March 1923 with a notice tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
VISCOUNT SIMON L. C: This appeal is brought, by leave of the Madras High Court, from an order of that Court dated 5th November 1937, dismissing the appellants' application that a writ of certiorari should issue to the Board of Revenue at Madras to bring up, in order to be quashed, an order made by the Collective Board, on 9th October 1936, under S. 172, Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The ancient writ of certiorari in England is an original writ which may issue out of a superior Court requiring that the record of the proceedings in some cause or matter pending before an inferior Court should be transmitted into the superior Court to be there dealt with. The writ is so named because, in its original Latin form, it required that the King should "be certified" of the proceedings to be investigated, and the object is to secure by the exercise of the authority of a superior Court, that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal should be properly exercised. This writ does not issue to correct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Reid: The appellants in this case were, during the material time, partners of the firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand which carried on business both within British India and elsewhere. Each appellant had a quarter share in the firm. The firm was a registered firm resident in British India within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first appellant was not ordinarily resident and the second appellant was not resident in British India within the meaning of that Act. A considerable part of the firm's income arose or accrued outside British India and was not brought into or received in British India. The question in the present case shortly stated is whether the appellants are bound to include in their total incomes for the purpose of Indian income-tax the whole of their shares of the firm's income or whether they are entitled to exclude a proportion of those shares corresponding to the proportion of the firm's income which arose or accrued outside British India. [2] The a...
Tag this Judgment!