Skip to content


Raj Kumari Debi Vs. Nritya Kali Debi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.892
AppellantRaj Kumari Debi
RespondentNritya Kali Debi
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Mahant of Tirupati
Excerpt:
withdrawal of suit - petition may be re-called before fined order--res judicata--judgment between defendants--res judicata between defendants--evidence, admissibility of--deposition--opportunity of cross-examination--evidence act (i of 1872), section 33--hindu widow--reversioner. - order7. in this case, the district magistrate took cognizance as upon a com plaint, and forwarded the complaint to the deputy magistrate for enquiry and disposal. the district magistrate was not bound to examine the complainant on oath, before transferring the complaint to the deputy magistrate, and did not do so. but we think that the deputy magistrate, before issuing the search warrant under section 96 of the code of the criminal procedure, should have examined the complainant on oath and we are supported in this by the observations in queen-empress v. mahant of tirupati 13 m. 18. we must, therefore, discharge the search warrant and direct the return of the articles, if any seized.
Judgment:
ORDER

7. In this case, the District Magistrate took cognizance as upon a com plaint, and forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and disposal. The District Magistrate was not bound to examine the complainant on oath, before transferring the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate, and did not do so. But we think that the Deputy Magistrate, before issuing the search warrant under Section 96 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, should have examined the complainant on oath and we are supported in this by the observations in Queen-Empress v. Mahant of Tirupati 13 M. 18. We must, therefore, discharge the search warrant and direct the return of the articles, if any seized.


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