Skip to content


In Re: Gamirullah Sarkar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1884)ILR10Cal408
AppellantIn Re: Gamirullah Sarkar;gamirullah Sarkar
Respondent;abdul Sheikh
Cases ReferredSonai Sardar v. Bukhtar Sardar
Excerpt:
magistrate, jurisdiction of - summary trial--criminal trespass--mischief--penal code, section 427--code of criminal procedure (act x of 1882), section 260. - .....judge has submitted the proceedings in order that the conviction and sentence may be quashed. first, because 'the judgment appears to rest principally on two documents referred to in it, which are not evidence against the accused at all.' this objection, however, is effectually disposed of by the fact that there is ample legal evidence, and therefere, under section 167 of the evidence act, we cannot interfere.2. the sessions judge next relies on the cases of shakur mahomed v. chunder mohun sha 21 w.r. cr. 38 and issur chunder mundle v. rohim sheikh 25 w.r. cr. 65. with regard to the first case, we would refer to the case of sonai sardar v. bukhtar sardar 25 w.r. 46 explaining it as no authority for the proposition quoted, and with regard to the other case, we would remark that.....
Judgment:

Prinsep, J.

1. The petitioners have been convicted in a summary trial of mischief and criminal trespass.

3. The Sessions Judge has submitted the proceedings in order that the conviction and sentence may be quashed. First, because 'the judgment appears to rest principally on two documents referred to in it, which are not evidence against the accused at all.' This objection, however, is effectually disposed of by the fact that there is ample legal evidence, and therefere, under Section 167 of the Evidence Act, we cannot interfere.

2. The Sessions Judge next relies on the cases of Shakur Mahomed v. Chunder Mohun Sha 21 W.R. Cr. 38 and Issur Chunder Mundle v. Rohim Sheikh 25 W.R. Cr. 65. With regard to the first case, we would refer to the case of Sonai Sardar v. Bukhtar Sardar 25 W.R. 46 explaining it as no authority for the proposition quoted, and with regard to the other case, we would remark that the present case cannot be regarded as a bond fide claim of right depriving the Magistrate of jurisdiction, so that the case quoted is not in point. We therefore see no reason to interfere.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //