Skip to content


Sonai Mugh Vs. Queen-empress - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1900)ILR27Cal654
AppellantSonai Mugh
RespondentQueen-empress
Excerpt:
chittagong hill tracts, conviction of offences committed within - appeal from--jurisdiction of high court to hear such appeal--chittagong act (xxii of i860), section 1--penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 379 and 457. - prinsep and stanley, jj.1. by act xxii of 1860, section 1, the tracts of country described in the schedule to that act and known as the chittagong hill tracts were removed from the jurisdiction of the existing civil and criminal court. consequently the court of sudder dewany adawalut had no jurisdiction to hear appeals in respect of sentences passed on conviction of offences committed within those districts. jurisdiction has not since that date been given either to the sudder court or to the high court. there is, therefore, no jurisdiction in the high court to hear this appeal. it is accordingly rejected.
Judgment:

Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.

1. By Act XXII of 1860, Section 1, the tracts of country described in the schedule to that Act and known as the Chittagong Hill Tracts were removed from the jurisdiction of the existing Civil and Criminal Court. Consequently the Court of Sudder Dewany Adawalut had no jurisdiction to hear appeals in respect of sentences passed on conviction of offences committed within those districts. Jurisdiction has not since that date been given either to the Sudder Court or to the High Court. There is, therefore, no jurisdiction in the High Court to hear this appeal. It is accordingly rejected.


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