Skip to content


In Re: Babu Mohan Lal Chatterjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Cal370
AppellantIn Re: Babu Mohan Lal Chatterjee
Excerpt:
- .....from august 1942, and ending january 1943. in contravention of the order so promulgated by the district magistrate, mr. mohan lai chatterjee, a pleader, practising at jessore took out a procession. he was convicted by the court of first instance for contravening the order passed under b. 56 of the defence of india rules, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. on appeal to the learned sessions judge, the learned sessions judge recorded a finding that mr. mohan lai chatterji did take part in the public procession, which had been taken out without the permission of the district magistrate. he, however, came to the conclusion that the procession was an orderly and a peaceful one. he upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The District Magistrate of Jessore had published an order in terms of Rule 56 of the Defence of India Rules prohibiting public processions for a period beginning from August 1942, and ending January 1943. In contravention of the order so promulgated by the District Magistrate, Mr. Mohan Lai Chatterjee, a pleader, practising at Jessore took out a procession. He was convicted by the Court of first instance for contravening the order passed under B. 56 of the Defence of India Rules, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that Mr. Mohan Lai Chatterji did take part in the public procession, which had been taken out without the permission of the District Magistrate. He, however, came to the conclusion that the procession was an orderly and a peaceful one. He upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was only three days. As Mr. Chatterji is a pleader, a rule was issued by this Court upon him to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the provision of Section 12, Legal Practitioners Act.

2. In order that we may be able to take action against him under that section, it is necessary for us to come to the conclusion that the finding on the basis of which he has been convicted implies a defect of character, which unfits him to be a pleader. On the facts which we have recited in the earlier part of our order, we do not think that his 1 conviction implies a defect of character, which unfits him to be a pleader. We accordingly discharge this rule.


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