D. E. Cranenburgh.

A handbook of criminal cases containing a verbatim reprint of all criminal cases reported in vols. I. to XVI., Calcutta series, I. L. R. [1876-1889] online

. (page 164 of 166)
Online LibraryD. E. CranenburghA handbook of criminal cases containing a verbatim reprint of all criminal cases reported in vols. I. to XVI., Calcutta series, I. L. R. [1876-1889] → online text (page 164 of 166)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

ply to persons of a " by no means reputable
character." An order requiring persons to
deposit cash in lieu of entering into a bond
as security for their future good behaviour
is bad in law. — Empress v, KalaChand Dass,
I. L. R., 6 Cal. 14 [see p. 251 of this book].

3. Security for Good Behaviour — Cri-
minal Procedure Code (A6i X. of 1872), ss.
S04, 505."] An accused person was convicted
of theft, and sentenced to two years' rigorous
imprisonment ; and was further ordered to
enter into his own recognizances for Rs. 50,
and find two sureties, each for a like sum, for
hisgoodbehaviourfor one year after the term
of his imprisonment had expired ; in default
to sufPer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Held that the latter part of the order was bad,
and that the Magistrate should have proceed-
ed under the provisions ot s. 504, cl. 2 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Empress v. Par-
tab (I. L. R., I All. 666) followed — Tamiz
Mandal v. Umid Karigar, I. L. R., 9 Cal. 215
[see p. 465 of this book].

4. Security for Good Behaviour — Cri-
minal Procedure Code (Afl X. of 1882), ss.
lOg, 110,112.'] Before a Magistrate can pass
an order directing an accused to furnish bail
and security for his good behaviour, it is ne-
cessary that the accused should be given an
opportunity of entering into his defence, and
that he should be clearly informed of the ac-
cusation which he has to meet. — Em press v.
Ishwar Chandra Sur, I. L. R., 1 1 Cal. 13 [see
p. 592 of this book].

5. Security for Good Behaviour — Cri-
minal Procedure Code (Act X. of 1882), ss.
no, 118, 72 J.] No appeal lies to the High
Court from an order passed by a District
Magistrate under the provisions of s. 123 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, and on re-
ference by the Magistrate, confirmed by the
Sessions Judge under the same section, re-
quiring 4 person to be detained in prison^

Security for Good Behaviour ctd. :

until he should provide security for his good
behaviour. — Chand Khan v. Empress. I. L.
R., 9 Cal. 878 [see p. 496 of this book].

6. Security for Good Behaviour — Cri-
minal Procedure Code (Act X. of 1882 J, ss.
no, 7/2.] The mere fact that a person from
whom security is required has been previous-
ly convicted of ofPences against property is
not sufficient to justify proceedings under s.
1 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, un-
less there be additional evidence that the
person complained against has done some
act or resumed avocations indicating on his
part an intention to return to his former
course of life. — In the Matter of the Petition
of Haidar AH, I. L. R., 12 Cal. 520 [see p.
678 of this book].

Security to Keep the Peace—

1. Security to Keep the Peace — Cri-
minal Procedure Code (Act X. of 1872), ss.
47, 4gi — District Magistrate — Withdrawal
of case — A^ XI. of i8t4, s. 6.] The provi-
sions of s. 47 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure, Aft X. of 1872, as amended by s. 6
of A6t XI. of 1874, are wide enough to em-
power a District Magistrate to withdraw a
case falling under s. 49 1 of the same Code. —
In the Matter of the Petition of Dinendro
Nath Shanial, I. L. R., 8 Cal. 851 [see p. 430
of this book].

2. Security TO Keep the PEscE^Afagis-
trate of the District — Appellate Court —
Criminal Procedure Code (A6i X. of 1882),
ss. 106, 423.] The Magistrate of a District
when acting as an Appellate Court is not
competent to make an order under s. 106 of
the Criminal Procedure Code (A6t X. of
1882), requiring the appellant to furnish se-
curity for keeping the peace. — In the Matter
of the Petition of Aslu and others ; Aslu v.
Queen -Empress, I. L. R., 16 Cal. 779 [see
p. 979 of this book].

Security to Produce Pfrson be-
fore Police—
Security to Produce Person before
Police — Security-bond — Crimituil Proce-
dure Code (Act X. of 1882), s. 514.] As
there is no provision in the Criminal Proce-
dure Code authorizing a police-officer to
take a surety-bond for the production of any
perse n before the police, such a bond is ab
initio void ; and a Magistrate has no power
to alter it, and impose fresh obligations
thereunder. — In the Matter of Chandra Se-
khar Rai, I. L. R., 11 Cal. 77 [see p. 594 of
this book].

Seizure of Cattle—
See Cattle-trespass Act.

Self-defence, Bight of—
See Possession, 2,

Digitized by





1. Sentence — Criminal Procedure Code
(Act X. of 1872), s. 36 — Confirmation 0/ sen-
tence by Sessions yudg\'] S. 36 of the Cri-
minal Procedure Code, as regards the ne-
cessity for confirmation of the sentence by
the Sessions Judge, refers to cases in which
the sentence of imprisonment is a sentence
of upwards of three years, without includ-
ing any additional sentence as to fine or
whipping. — Empress v. Shumsher Khan, I.
L. R., 6 Cal. 624 [see p. 303 of this book].

2. Sentence — Cumulative sentence —
Practice — Separate charges — Criminal Pro-
cedure Code (A6i X, of t8j2), s. 434, ill.f—
Penal Code (A6i XLV. of i860), ss. I4T, 148,
324.'] Under s 454 of the Criminal Proce-
dure Code, the collective punishment award-
ed under ss. 147, 148, and 324 of the Penal
Code, must not exceed that which may be
awarded for the graver offence. Qucere. —
Whether separate convictions under ss. 147,
324 of the Penal Code are legal ? — Empress
V. Jubdur Kazi and Gulab Khan, I. L. R., 6
Cal. 718 [see p. 310 of this book].

3. Sentence — Cumulative sentence —
Practice — Conviction of rioting and causing
hurt by dangerous weapons — Distinct offences
—Separate charges— Penal Code (Aa XLV.
of 1S60), ss.yi, 148, 149, 324 — Criminal Pro-
cedure Code (A61 X, of 1882), ss. J5, 23$ —
Criminal Procedure Code (A6i X. of 1872), ss.
314, 454— Aa VIIL of 1882, s. 4.] The of-
fences of rioting armed with a deadly weapon,
and voluntarily causing hurt with a danger-
ous weapon to two persons, are distinct of-
fences ; and a person charged with such of-
fences can be convicted and sentenced in re-
spect of the rioting, and of the hurt caused to
each of the persons injured. A and B were
charged with rioting armed with deadly wea-
pons, under s. 148 of the Penal Code; and
they were also charged under s. 324, coupled
with s. 149, with causing hurt by a dangerous
weapon to X ; and B was further charged,
under s. 324, with causing a like hurt to Y ;
A being also charged under s. 324, coupled
with s, 149, in respect of the hurt caused by
B to .Y. A and B were convicted on all
the charges, and separate sentences, to take
effect in succession, were awarded in respect
of each offence charged. The offences under
s. 324 were committed during the riot. Held
that the several acts with regard to which the
prisoners were charged did not fall within the
provisions of s. 71 of the Penal Code, inas-
much as it was not found that the causing of
the hurt was the force or violence which alone
constituted the rioting, and that, consequent-
ly, under s. 235 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, the several sentences passed were
strictly legal. — Loke Nath Sarkar v. Empress
1. L. R., 1 1 Cal. 349 [see p. 617 of this book].

Sentence (contd.) —

4. Sentence — Cumulative sentence — Se-
parate convictions for more than one offence
where acts combined form one offence — Penal
Code (Act XLV. of i860) ss. 143, 147, 324,
353 (Act VIIL of 1882), s. 4— Criminal Pro-
cedure Code (Act X. of 1882), s. 233} Four
persons were charged with being members
of an unlawful assembly consisting of them-
selves and others, the common object of
which assembly was resisting the execution
of a legal process, namely, the arrest of a
judgment-debtor by a Civil Court peon, who
went with a warrant for his arrest accom-
panied by other persons, A and B, for the
purpose of identifying him, and with using
force or violence in prosecution of the com-
mon object, such force or violence consisting
of an assault on the Civil Court peon ana
another by means of a dangerous weapon
on A. The Deputy Magistrate convicted all
the accused of offences under ss. 147 and 353
of the Penal Code, and sentenced them to six
months' rigorous imprisonment under the
former section and two months' rigorous im-
prisonment under the latter. He further
convicted one of the accused of an offence
under s 324 in respect of the assault on A,
and sentenced him to one month's rigorous
imprisonment in respect of that offence, and
directed that the sentences were to take effect
one on the expiry of the other. Held that
the offence of rioting was completed by the
assault on A, and that the assault on the
peon was a further offence under the first
sub-section of s. 235 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Held further that, even if A had
not been assaulted, the conviction and sen-
tences passed for rioting and the assault on
the peon were legal, inasmuch as the acts of
the accused taken separately constituted of-
fences under ss. 143 and 353 of the Penal
Code, and, combined, an offence under s.
147 ; and under s. 235, sub-s. 3 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the accused might be
charged with and tried at one trial for the
offence under s. 147, and those under ss. 143
and 353, and therefore also separately con-
victed and sentenced for each such offence,
provided the punishment did not exceed the
limit imposed by s. 71 of the Penal Code, as
amended by s. 4 of Act VIII. of 1882, which
limit had not been exceeded in the present
c«Lse. — In the Matter of Chandra Kant Bhatta-
charjee and others ; Chandra Kant Bhatta-
charjee v. Queen-Empress, I. L. R., 13 Cat
495 [see p. 676 of this book].

5. Sentence — P^mz/ Code (Act XLV. of
i860), ss. 7Sf '79, 5// — Attempt to commit
an offence — Enhancement of sentence/or pre^
vious conviction — Previous conviction."} A
person who has been convi^ed of the offence
of theft (an offence punishable ander Ch.

Digitized by




Sentence {contd,)-^

XVII. of the Penal Code) does not, on being
coDvi6led of Sinatiempt to commit the offence
of theft, become liable to the enhanced pun-
ishment allowed by s. 75 of the Penal Code.
— Queen-Kmpress v. Sricharan Bauri, I. L.
R., 14 Cal. 357 [see p. 739 of this book].

6. Sentence — Separate sentences/or riot-
ing and grievous hurt — PenalCode (Act XL V.
of 1860J, ss. 71, para. I, 144, 147, 14S, 324,
— Act VII l. of 1882 — Criminal Procedure
Code (Act X, of 1882), s. jj] Per Curiam
(Tottenham, J., dissenting) .—Separate sen-
tences passed upon persons for the offences
of rioting and grievous hurt are not legal
where it is found that such persons indivi-
dually did not commit any aft which amount-
ed to voluntarily causing hurt, but were guil-
ty of that offence under s. 149 of the Penal
.Code. Empress v. Ram Partab (I. L. R., 6
All. 121) approved. Loke Nath Sarkar v.
Queen-Empress (I. L. R., 11 Cal. 349) over-
ruled. — Nilmony Poddar v. Queen-Empress,
I. L. R., 16 Cal. 442 [see p. 920 of this book].

7. Sentence — Cumulative sentences —
Rioting — Distinct offences — Conviction for
rioting and causing hurt and grievous hurt
— Separate conviction for more than one of
fence vihen acts combined form one offence —
Abetment of grievous hurt during riot —
Penal Code (Act XLV. of i860), «. 147, J2j,
JJ5.] Six accused persons were charged
with and convicted of rioting, the common
object of which was causing hurt to two par-
ticular men. Four of the accused were also
charged with and convicted of, respectively,
causing hurt during the riot to the two men
and a woman, and were sentenced to sepa-
rate terms of imprisonment under ss. 147
and 323 of the Penal Code. Held that the
sentences were legal. During the course of
a riot, in which X was attacked and beaten
by several of the rioters, one of them K in-
flicted grievous hurt on X by breaking his
rib with a blow struck with a lathi ; K and
three others of the rioters were charged with
offences under ss. 147 and 325 of the Penal
Code, and K was convicted under those sec-
tions. The other three were convicted
under s. 147 and also under s. 325 read with
9. 109. Separate sentences were passed on
K and also on the other thre^ for each of
the offences. Held that the sentences on
K were Ic^, but that, as there was nothing
to show that the other three had abetted the
particular blow which caused the grievous
hurt, although they had each of them as-
saulted X, the conviction of them under s.
325 read withs. 109 could not be supported.
— In the Matter of the Petition of Mohur
Mir and others v. Queen-Empress ; and In
the Matter of the Petition of Kali Roy and

Sentence (contd.)-^
others v, Queen-Empress, I. L. R., 16 Cal.
725 [see p. 966 of this book].
See Enhancement of Sentence.

n Jurisdiction, 2.

91 Revision, 4.

}} Summary Trial, I.

Separate Charges—

I. Separate Charges — Practice — Dis-
tinct offences — Criminal Procedure Code (Act
X, of 1872), ss. 532, 553. 554, Oil. bj, 555.']
S. 453 of the Criminal Procedure Code
simply places a statutory limit on the num-
ber of charges which may legally form part
of a single trial. There is nothing in the
section, however, to prevent an accused from
being separately charged and tried on the
same day for any number of distinct oflFentes
of the same kind committed within the year.
— Ram Manikya Chakrobutty v. Dononjoy
Baraj, I. L. R.,3Cal. 540 [see p. 126 of this

2. Separ.\te Charges — Charges, Distinct
and separate, tried simultaneously by a jury
— Parties opposed in rioting — Consent by
pleaders on behalf of accused to irregular
procedure — Examination of excused by Ses-
sions Judge — Criminal Procedure Cade (Act
X. of 1872), ss. 243, 250, 264, 265.'] Mem-
bers of two opposing parties in a riot were,
under two distinct committals, sent up for
trial before the Sessions Judge and a jury.
After the close of the case for the prosecution
in one of these cases, the Sessions Judge with
the conseilt of the pleaders representing the
accused, postponed the taking of the evi-
dence for the defence, and proceeded to exa-
mine the witnesses for the prosecution in the
counter-case before the same jury. The
Court then took the evidence of the witnesses
for the defence in the first, and in the coun-
ter-case in the order named, and, after hear-
ing the address of the various pleaders for
the defence, and the reply of the Government
Pleader, proceeded to sum up the facts in
both cases to the jury, who returned a ver-
dict in respect of all the accused. Held that
the procedure resorted to by the Judge was a
practical violation of the salutary rule which
necessitated the keeping of trials in such
cases distinctly separate, and that its adop-
tion having materially prejudiced the inter-
ests of the accused, the convictions should
be set aside. Queen v. Sheikh Bazu (B. L.
R., Sup. Vol., 750 ; 8 W. R., Cr. Rul., 47)
distinguished. Held further that the defect
in the procedure could not be cured by the
consent of the pleaders for the defence to
the arrangement suggested by the Court.
The authority given to a Sessions Court to
examine an accused do^s not contemplate the
cross-examination of such accused, nor can

Digitized by




Separate Charges (contd.)^

the Judge endeavour, by a series of searching
questions, to force the accused to criminate
himself. The real object involved in the
power given to the Court under s. 250 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is to enable the
Judge to ascertain from time to time from
the accused (especially if he be undefended)
such explanation as he may desire to give
regarding any statement made by the wit-
nesses, or, at the close of the case for the
prosecution, to elicit from the accused how
he proposes to meet such portions of the evi-
dence which, in the opinion of the Court,
implicates the accused in the commission
of the offence with which he stands charged.
— Hossein Buksh v. Empress, I. L. R., 6CaI.
96 [see p. 258 of this bcNok].

See Jury, 4
w Sentence, 2, 3.

Separate Charges for Distinct Of-
See Separate Trial, 3.

Separate Convictions for more
than one Offence-
See Sentence, 4, 7.

Separate Sentences for Rioting
and Grievous Hurt-
See Sentence, 6.

Separate Trial—

I. Separate Trial — Penal Code (Act
XLV. of i860), ss. 167, 466, 47 t-t-Criminal
Procedure Code (Act X. of 1872), ss, 44s,
446, 4S3 — Offences of the sa me kind — A mend-
ment of charge.'] The prisoner was commit-
ted for trial on fifty-five charges, including
three charges under ss. 167, 466, and 471 of
the Penal Code. At the trial before the
District Judge sitting with assessors, the
Court informed the prisoner that the trial
would be confined to the three charges last
mentioned. The prisoner was convicted on
these, but the Court allowed evidence to be
adduced by the prosecution on all the remain-
ing charges, and in respect of these the
prisoner was acquitted. On appeal to the
High Court, held that the District Judge
should have exercised the powers conferred
on him by ss. 445 and 446 of the Code of Cri-
minal Procedure, and then have proceeded
to hold separate trials ; that he should not
have tried together the charges under ss. 167
and 466 of the Penal Code, as the offences
were not of the same kind within the mean-
ing of s. 453 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure ; but the convictions on these charges
were upheld, as it did not appear that the
prisoner had been prejudiced by the mode of
trial adopted. — Empress v. Sreenath Kur, I.
L. R., 8 Cal. 450 [see p. 396 of this book].

Separate Trial {contd.)^

2. Separate Trial— Committal on two
separate charges — Trial as for one offence —
Criminal Procedure Code (Act X. ef 1872),
s, 4S4 — Separate trial."] Where persons are
charged with rioting and also with causing
hurt, although they may be tried as for one
offence under s. 454 of the Criminal Pro-
cedure Code, it is not illegal to try them for
both offences separately. — Ameniddin v.
Farid Sarkar, I. L. R., 8 Cal. 481 [see p. 401
of this book].

3. Separate Trial — Criminal Procedure
Code (Act X. of 1882J, ss. 233, 234, SJ7— Se-
parate charges for distinct offences."] Five
persons were charged with having commit-
ted the offence of rioting on the 5th Decem-
ber ; four out of those persons, and one F,
were charged with having committed the
offence of criminal trespass on the 9th De-
cember. These two cases were taken up and
tried together in one trial, and were decided
by one judgment. Held that the trial was
ill^^l, and the defect was not cored by s.
537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. — In
the Matter of the Petition of Chandi Singh
and others ; Queen -Em press v. Chandi
Singh and others, I. L. R., 14 CaL 395 [see
p. 744 of this book].

See False Evidence, $.
)i Joinder of Charges, i.
n Separate Charges, 2.

Criminal Act of. See Master and Ser-

Sessions Court —

Addition of Charges at See Evidence, 4.

Cannot commit to itself Case not exclu-
sively triable by itself. See Jurisdic-
tion, 1.

Sessions Judge-
Confirmation of Sentence by. See Sen-
tence, I.

Examination of Accused by. See Sepa-
rate Charges, 2.

Directing Further Inquiry and Commit-
ment. See Discharge, g.

Directing Re-trial in a Case of Adultery,
Ille^ity of. See Adultery, 2.

Disagreeing with Verdict of Jury. See
Appeal, i.

Duty of, in summing up to Assessors.
See Assessors.

Jurisdiction of. See Sanction to Pro-
secute, 15.

Several Claimants-
joint Hearing of Case of. See Posses-
sion, 22.

Several Offences—

Several Offences — PencU Code (Ad
XLV. of 1860J, ss, 411, 413-^ffences ofdif.

Digitized by




Several Offences (contd.)—

ferent kinds — Criminal Procedure Code (Ail
X. of 1872), ss. 283, 453 — Defect in proce-
dure — Reduction of punishment — Course to
be followed at trialJ] A prisoner cannot be
tried at the same trial for receiving or re-
taining (s. 411, Penal Code), and habitually
receiving or dealing in (s. 413), stolen pro-
perty. The proper course is to try the accus-
ed 6rst for the offences under s. 411, and if
he is convicted to try him under s. 413, put-
ting in evidence the previous convictions un-
der s. 41 1, and proving the finding of the rest
of the property in respect of which no sepa-
rate charge, under s. 411, could be made or
tried by reason of the provisions of s. 453 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. — In the Mat-
ter of the Petition of Uttom Koondoo, I. L.
R., 8 Cal. 634 [see p. 412 of this book].

Shall Answer all Questions-
Meaning of the Expression. See Evi*


Showing Cause against Commit-
ment —

Opportunity of. See Disch.\rge, 5.

Signs observed at Post-mortem
May be put to Expert Witness. See Con-
fession, 14.


Residents of, convicted at Mohurbhunj.
See Jurisdiction, 4.

Sleeping Apartment—
See Criminal Trespass, 4.

Snake-charmer causing Death by
See Culpable Homicide, 3.

Special Court at Rangoon—

Power of, to hear Appeal from Sentence
of Judicial Commissioner. See Juris-
diction, 2.

Spirituous Liquor includes Tctri-
See Cantonments Act.

Death caused by Rupture of. See Rash
and Negligent Act.

Splitting up Ofltence—
See Summary Trial, 2, 4.


I. Stamp — 5/aw/ Act (XVIII. of 1869),
S. 2g, and sch. ii., art. 38 — Instrument of
transfer — Prosecution by Collector — Inten-
tion to evade payment of stamp-duty.] The
accused was prosecuted under Act XVIII.
of 1869, s. 29, for executing a document on
insufficiently stamped paper. The document
recited that, " whereas A and B have sold to
me 2 gundas 3 cowries of land under a kobala,

Stamp (contd.)—

dated the 9th of Jeyt 1283, in Heu of a con-
sideration of Rs. 695, and whereas I have
returned to the vendors in all 4 cottas of land
worth about Rs. 25, and whereas in lieu of
the said land the said vendors have given
me 4 cottas of zerait land held by them, now ~
I or my heirs shall have no objection or con-
test whatever in regard to the mutual ex-
change of lands between the vendors and me
the purchaser; hence I have executed this
chitti by way of conveyance or deed of ex-
change, which may be of service when re-
quired." This document bore a stamp of
eight annas, and it was executed only by the
accused and presented by him for registra-
tion. Held that the document was an in-
strument of transfer within the meaning of
art. 38, sch. ii., Act XVIII. of 1869. Held
also that a Magistrate is bound, for the pur-
pose of ascertaining whether any and what
penalty should be imposed, to consider whe-
ther a person prosecuted under s. 29, Act
XVIII. of 1869, had any intention to defraud
by evading payment of stamp-duty. — Em-
press V. Dwarkanath Chowdhrv, I. L. R., 2
Cal. 399 [see p. 48 of this boolt].

2. Stamp— Stamp A6i (XVIII. of 1869),
ss. 29, 43 — Procedure — Magistrate authori»'
ed to prosecute."] A Magistrate who has been
authorized by the Collector of a district, un-
der s. 43 of the Stamp Aft, to prosecute of-
fenders against the stamp-laws, is not com-
petent also to try persons whom he prose-
cutes. The Collector should appoint some
person other than a Magistrate to conduct
the prosecutions. — Empress v. Gangadhur
Bhunjo, I. L. R., 3 Cal. 622 [see p. 135 of this
book J.

3. Stamp— 5/aw^ Ail (I, of 1879J, ss. 37,
40 — Arbitration — Award — Evading pay'
ment of stamp-duty."] Six persons acted as
arbitrators in a dispute between two of their
fellow-villagers, and delivered their award in
writing. Subsequently, the award was filed
in evidence by one of the disputants in a civil
suit in the Court of the Munsif of Cuttack,
who, on the ground that the document bore
no stamp, impounded it, and forwarded it to
the Collector, who ordered the writer to be
prosecuted. The Deputy Magistrate, to
whom the case was referred, summoned the
six persons who had acted as arbitrators, and
fined them Rs. 25 each. On a reference to
the High Court by the District Magistrate,
ffeld that the conviction was illegal, and
should be set aside. Held also that the pro-
cedure laid down in s. 37 of the Stamp A6t
must be strictly followed ; and that, before a
prosecution can be instituted under s. 40, the
Collector is bound to form an opinion as to
whether the offence was committed with the
intention of evading payment of the proper

1. L. Rv Cal. 135.

Digitized by


Online LibraryD. E. CranenburghA handbook of criminal cases containing a verbatim reprint of all criminal cases reported in vols. I. to XVI., Calcutta series, I. L. R. [1876-1889] → online text (page 164 of 166)