Skip to content


The Empress Vs. Baidanath Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
AppellantThe Empress
RespondentBaidanath Das
Excerpt:
offence punishable by fine and confiscation - act xxi of 1856, section 49--offences triable in a summary way--summons cases--sentence--criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), sections 4, 8, 148, 149 & 222. - richard garth, c.j.1. we are clearly of opinion, that an offence under section 49, act xxi of 1856, can be tried summarily by a magistrate under section 222 of the criminal procedure code.2. the confiscation, which is provided for by section 49, is merely a consequence of the conviction, and does not form part of the punishment for the offence. we observe that, in the case of khetter mohun chowrunghee 22 w.r. cr. rul. 43, to which we are referred, the question which we are called upon to decide was given up by the government pleader without argument; and that in the second case the learned judges merely followed the ruling in the first, so that this would appear to be the first occasion on which the point has been seriously considered.
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We are clearly of opinion, that an offence under Section 49, Act XXI of 1856, can be tried summarily by a Magistrate under Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The confiscation, which is provided for by Section 49, is merely a consequence of the conviction, and does not form part of the punishment for the offence. We observe that, in the case of Khetter Mohun Chowrunghee 22 W.R. Cr. Rul. 43, to which we are referred, the question which we are called upon to decide was given up by the Government Pleader without argument; and that in the second case the learned Judges merely followed the ruling in the first, so that this would appear to be the first occasion on which the point has been seriously considered.


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