Skip to content


Mailamdi Fakir Vs. Taripulla Pramanik - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR8Cal644
AppellantMailamdi Fakir
RespondentTaripulla Pramanik
Excerpt:
record of inferior court - explanation of order passed--criminal procedure code (act x of 1872) section 295--indefinite period of imprisonment in default of security, order for. - mcdonell, j.1. there has been great delay on the part of the sessions judge in making this reference. the explanation of the honorary magistrates who sat on the bench and are alive ought to have been submitted. the record says that the charge was under section 352; and there is no serious contention that anything else was intended. so much of the order as directs the accused to be imprisoned until he gives security is bad, and a definite period not exceeding one year should have been inserted in this part of the order.2. under all these circumstances we think it will be sufficient to set aside so much of the order as requires recognizance and security to keep the peace, and we set aside this portion accordingly.
Judgment:

McDonell, J.

1. There has been great delay on the part of the Sessions Judge in making this reference. The explanation of the Honorary Magistrates who sat on the Bench and are alive ought to have been submitted. The record says that the charge was under Section 352; and there is no serious contention that anything else was intended. So much of the order as directs the accused to be imprisoned until he gives security is bad, and a definite period not exceeding one year should have been inserted in this part of the order.

2. Under all these circumstances we think it will be sufficient to set aside so much of the order as requires recognizance and security to keep the peace, and we set aside this portion accordingly.


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