Skip to content


Maharaj Mandal Vs. Pokar Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1910)ILR37Cal543
AppellantMaharaj Mandal
RespondentPokar Singh
Excerpt:
ferry - private and public ferries--maintaining a private ferry within two miles from the limits of a public ferry--limits not declared by the local government--bengal ferries act (beng. i of 1885) sections 6, 16, 28. - .....sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the limits of the public ferry have not been declared under section 6 of the act. it appears that this is the fact of the case. there is nothing to show that the karagola ferry has ever been declared to be a public ferry under section 6, or, at least, the declaration itself has not been produced. the judge tells us that the karagola ferry certainly is a public ferry and has existed for over 35 years, and, from what is said in the explanation, we gather that the point was not raised at the trial. at the same time the karagola ferry has apparently not been declared under section 6, and, therefore, the limits within which the rights connected with it exist, have not been, and cannot be, ascertained.2. under.....
Judgment:

Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.

1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted of an offence under Section 28 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. We have granted a rule on the Magistrate of the Purneah District to show cause why the conviction and the sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the limits of the public ferry have not been declared under Section 6 of the Act. It appears that this is the fact of the case. There is nothing to show that the Karagola ferry has ever been declared to be a public ferry under Section 6, or, at least, the declaration itself has not been produced. The Judge tells us that the Karagola ferry certainly is a public ferry and has existed for over 35 years, and, from what is said in the explanation, we gather that the point was not raised at the trial. At the same time the Karagola ferry has apparently not been declared under Section 6, and, therefore, the limits within which the rights connected with it exist, have not been, and cannot be, ascertained.

2. Under these circumstances we consider that the conviction cannot stand. We accordingly make the rule absolute and set aside the conviction. Any money paid in respect of the fines imposed will be refunded.


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