Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal621
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This is a rule, which was granted by a Division Bench of this Court, on the 6th of August last, calling upon the District Magistrate of Sarun to show cause, why an order made under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which a person called Rai Isri Pershad was directed to be bound down with sureties to be of good behaviour for a period of three years, should not be set aside on the ground that the order is based mainly on evidence that is inadmissible; and that, if that evidence be excluded, the remaining evidence will not support the order.2. The rule was argued before this Bench for several days, and is now ready for judgment.3. In considering the matter it will be necessary to consider several sets of circumstances in their order of date, in order that we may arrive at a proper conclusion in this case, and the first set of circumstances, which I propose to consider, is the set of circumstances connected with the proceeding's un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 18Ind.Cas.149
Carnduff, J.1. Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 provides that, whenever a Sub-Divisional Magistrate receives information that a person within the local limits of his jurisdiction is in the habit of committing such offences as theft, robbery, extortion, breach of the peace and so forth, or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, he may require him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for his good behaviour; and Section 117, Sub-section (3), enacts that the fact that a person is such a habitual offender as aforesaid may be proved by evidence of general repute or otherwise.2. Under these provisions, the petitioner, who is an Honorary Magistrate of twenty years' standing and a zemindar of good family and position residing in the Supaul Sub-Division of the Bhagalpur District, was, on the 18th May last, called upon to show cause by Babu Satis Chandra Mukerjee, the Sub-Divisional Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 47Ind.Cas.811
1.The accused Kabili Katoni has been found guilty by the unanimous verdict of the Jury of the murder of one Mangal Singh and has been sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley District. The case has come before us under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and there is also an appeal by the accused to this Court.2. It was argued that there had been such a misdirection by the learned Sessions Judge as vitiated the verdict of the Jury and that the accused was entitled to a new trial. The passage relied upon was that where the learned Judge was dealing with the burden which lay upon either side to prove such facts as they asserted. In this case' (he said) 'it is for Kabili to satisfy the Jury that he was ill treated by the Police or that inducements were offered,' On 12th September 1917, Kabili had made a detailed confession before a Magistrate. To that confession he adhered, with some slight differences and additions, before the Commit-ting Magistrate on 27th Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1928Cal446,108Ind.Cas.590
1. Criminal Revision No. 952 of 1927. This Rule has been granted in regard to an order-made by the Deputy Magistrate of Howrah trader Section 144, Criminal P.C. The material portion of the order was in these terms:Whereas it appears from the petition filed on 21st July 1927 by Narain Das Chandra of 12 Shib Kristo Daw Lane, Calcutta, and the report dated the 26th July 1927 submitted thereupon by the Sub-Inspector of Golabari police station that Bam Gopal Goenka, of 20 Central Avenue, Calcutta, is holding a new market at Nos. 97 and 99 Haragunj Road, Sulkea, adjacent to the old Haragunj Bazar belonging to the Daw Babus of Jorasanko, Calcutta, for which a breach of the peace is apprehended, I do hereby prohibit the said Ram Gopal Goenka from holding new market at Nos. 97 and 99. Haragunj Road, as the holding of such market will lead to an imminent breach of the peace.2. Now the order was only in force for two months and it expired on the 27th September 1927. Prima facie, therefore, the ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1929Cal747
Mukerji, J.1. Accused 1 Jnanendra Nath Ghosh alias Jnan Ghosh was convicted under Section 493, I.P.C., and sentenced to be detained till the rising of of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and accused 2 was convicted under Sections 493/ 109, I. P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by an Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas on 5th June 1928. The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs then moved this Court for enhancement of the sentences passed upon the said two accused persons and originally the rule was issued as against both of them to show cause why their sentences should not be enhanced. Subsequently it was mentioned to the Court that accused 2 could not be found and upon that the rule as against accused 1 only was allowed to be proceeded with. It has now been heard by us in so far ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 119Ind.Cas.301
Mukerji, J.1. Accused No. 1 Jnanendra Nath Ghosh alias Jnan Ghoshwas convicted under Section 493, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to be detained till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and the accused No. 2 was convicted under Sections 4 93-109, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by an Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas on the 5th June, 1928. The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs then moved this Court for enhancement of the sentences passed upon the said two accused persons and originally the Rule was issued as against both of them to show cause why their sentences should not be enhanced Subsequently it was mentioned to the Court that the accused No. 2 could not be found and upon that the Rule as against accused No. 1 only was allowed to be proceeded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1929Cal617
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case Padam-prasad was tried at the High Court Sessions by my learned brother, Jack, J., and a common Jury on charges laid under Sections 193 and 471, I.P.C., together with Sujauddin Ahmed and Kanhyalal. He was convicted on the unanimous verdict of the jury of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also on the substantive charge of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged. Kanhyalal was acquitted of both charges and Sujauddin Ahmed was convicted of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also of abetment of. the offence of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged.2. On 19th March 1927, a Nepali girl called Raj Kumari presented a petition of complaint to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate charging Padam Prasad with divers offences and in particular with the offence of having sold her to one Hiralal Agarwala for immoral purposes. She alleged that she ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 119Ind.Cas.193
George Clause Rankin, C.J.1. In this case Padam Prosad was tried at the High Court Sessions by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Jack, and a common Jury on charges laid under Sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code together with Sujauddin Ahmad and Kanhya Lal He was convicted on the unanimous verdict of the Jury of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also on the substantive charge of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged. Kanhya Lal was acquitted of both charges and Sujauddin Ahmad was convicted of abetment of the offence of fabricating false evidence and also of abetment of the offence of dishonestly using as genuine a forged document knowing the same to be forged. On the 19th March, 1927, a Nepali girl called Rajkumari presented a petition of complaint to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate charging Padam Prosad with diverse offences and in particular with the offence of having sold her to one Hiralal Agarwala fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All109; 121Ind.Cas.701
1. The property is dispute originally belonged to Molai who in 1881 put his wife Mt. Nepali in possession and got mutation of names effected in her favour. It has been assumed all along that by adverse possession Mt. Nepali acquired an absolute proprietary interest in this property. The property therefore became her stridhan. In 1890 long after the death of her husband she attempted to make a gift of this property in favour of her daughter Mt. Lakhpati and got mutation of names effected in her favour. It is admitted that Mt. Lakhpati continued in adverse possession of this property from 1890 to 1899 when Mt. Nepali died. On the death of Mt. Nepali, her daughter Mt. Lakhpati was her sole heir. She continued in possession of this property as before till her death in 1920. Mt. Nepali had not executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Mt. Lakhpati as required by law.2. The plaintiff is an heir of Mt. Lakhpati's husband and claims the property on the ground that it was the stridhan of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom617; (1932)34BOMLR1401
Wadia, J.1. [His Lordship narrated the facts of the case, discussed the evidence, and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim came to Rs. 1,925, The judgment then dealt with the question of set-off: ] Defendants claim to set-off Rs. 1,175 against the plaintiffs' claim, The plaintiffs contend that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the set-off, and that in any event they are not liable to pay Rs. 1,175 to the defendants, but Rs. 300 less, that is to say, Rs. 875, [His Lordship held on evidence that the defendants were entitled to put forward a claim in respect of the full amount of Rs. 1,175, and then preceded: ]2. The important question, however, is whether the defendants are entitled to set off the full sum of Rs. 1,175 against Rs. 1,925 due by them to the plaintiffs. Under Order VIII, Rule 6, of the Civil Procedure Code, a defendant is entitled to set off any ascertained sum of money against the plaintiff if inter alia it is legally recoverable. In this case the am...
Tag this Judgment!