Skip to content


Behary Lall Trigunait Vs. Darby - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR21Cal915
AppellantBehary Lall Trigunait
RespondentDarby
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (1882), section 145 - possession, order of criminal court as to--parties to proceedings--right to notice - .....us to say that it must be made absolute, because the persons interested are not before the court. mr. darby, in whose favour this order has been made, in his written statement, states that the property in question belongs to a coal company, and that his position is that of a manager of the company. he does not state that he has any interest except as manager and does not state that be has any independent, or in fact any, possession, except as representing the company on whose behalf he is managing the mine. we do not think that that kind of possession is a possession such as is contemplated by this section, or, as 1 said just now, that the parties interested are properly before us. for these reasons we make the rule absolute.
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Rampini, J.

1. We think that this rule must be made absolute, and that it is enough for us to say that it must be made absolute, because the persons interested are not before the Court. Mr. Darby, in whose favour this order has been made, in his written statement, states that the property in question belongs to a Coal Company, and that his position is that of a manager of the Company. He does not state that he has any interest except as manager and does not state that be has any independent, or in fact any, possession, except as representing the Company on whose behalf he is managing the mine. We do not think that that kind of possession is a possession such as is contemplated by this section, or, as 1 said just now, that the parties interested are properly before us. For these reasons we make the rule absolute.


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