Skip to content


Srish Chandra Mukerjee Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.16
AppellantSrish Chandra Mukerjee
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredJohan v. King
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 233 - charge--cheating complainant on three different occasions--one count, bad in law. - 1. on the authority of the two cases cited gul mahomed sircar v. ckeharu mandal 10 c.w.n. 53; 3 cr. l.j. 141; johan v. king-emperor 10 c.w.n. 520; 2 c.l.j. 618; 3 cr. l.j. 111 we hold that the charge in this case is bad. the only question is whether we should send back the case for re-trial. we think, in the circumstances it would be highly unprofitable to do so, and specially having regard to the evidence brought to our notice and to the statement elicited from girish chunder ghosh in re-examination.2. the result is that we set aside the conviction and sentence, and order that the fine be refunded if already paid.
Judgment:

1. On the authority of the two cases cited Gul Mahomed Sircar v. Ckeharu Mandal 10 C.W.N. 53; 3 Cr. L.J. 141; Johan v. King-Emperor 10 C.W.N. 520; 2 C.L.J. 618; 3 Cr. L.J. 111 we hold that the charge in this case is bad. The only question is whether we should send back the case for re-trial. We think, in the circumstances it would be highly unprofitable to do so, and specially having regard to the evidence brought to our notice and to the statement elicited from Girish Chunder Ghosh in re-examination.

2. The result is that we set aside the conviction and sentence, and order that the fine be refunded if already paid.


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