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 166 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 166 of 166)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


been convicted by Mr. Carnegy, the Assist-
ant Commissioner of Kamrup, in the exer-
cise of a summary jurisdiction under s. 222
of Act X. of 1872. This officer was, in the
year 1872, in charge of the Jorhat Division
in the District of Sibsagar, '* with first-class
powers and powers under s. 222*' of the Act.
In 1874 he proceeded on furlough to Eng-
land, and, on his return in 1875, was posted
to the District of Kamrup, and invested with
the powers of a Magistrate of the first class.
Held that s. 56 of Act X. of 1859 did not
apply, and that Mr. Carnegy had no sum-
mary jurisdiction in Kamrup. Per Markby,
J., on the ground that, by the terms in which
the Government had conferred that jurisdic-
tion on Mr. Carnegy, it had in effect " di-
rected," within the meaning of s. $6 of Act
X. of 1872, that he should not exercise that
jurisdiction anywhere but in Sibsagar. Per
Mitter, J., on the ground that the office to
which Mr. Carnegy was appointed in Kam-
rup was not equal to, or higher than, that
which he had held in Sibsagar. Quare per
Markby, J., whether the posting of Mr. Car-
negy to Kamrup, after his return from fur-
lough, was a transfer from Sibsagar within
the meaning of s. 56 of Act X. of 1872. —
In the Matter of Pursooram Borooah, L L.
R., 2 Cal. 117 [see p. 31 of this book].

Transferred Case-
See Jurisdiction, 2.



Trespass —

See Summary Trial, 5.

Trespass during Biot—
See Separate Trial, 3.

Trial-
Deposition at. See Possession, 3.

Trial by Assessors-
Summing up in a. See Assessors.

Trial of British Seamen for Of-
fences committed on British
Ship on High Seas-
See Merchant Shipping Act.

Trial to be Separate in Caae of
Perjury—

See False Evidence, 5.

Tributary Mehals—
See Jurisdiction of High Court, 3, 4,
7.
Truth-
Witnesses not likely to speak the. See
Witnesses for Prosecution, 3.

u.

Unanimous Verdict-
Judge dissenting from. See Jury, 4.

Unlawful Assembly—

Unlawful Assembly — Penal Code (Act
XLV. of i860), s. /^j.] On the trial of cer-
tain persons charged with being members
of an unlawful assembly, it was proved that
there was a dispute of long standing between
the accused and certain other parties regard-
ing the possession of certain land ; that nei-
ther of the parties was in undisturbed pos-
session of the land ; that the accused went
to sow the land with indigo, accompanied
by a body of men armed with latties ; that
they were prepared to use force if necessary ;
and that the lattials kept off the opposite
party by brandishing their weapons while the
land was sowed. Held that the accused
were rightly convicted of being members of
an unlawful assembly under s. 143 of the
Penal Code. Sunker Singh v. Burmah Mah-
to (23 W. R. Cr. 35) distinguished. — Peary
Mohun Sircar v. Empress, I. L. R., 9 Cal.
639 [see p. 489 of this book].
See Confession, 7.

)) Culpable Homicide, 4.

)9 Fishery, 1.

,1 Jury, 4.

99 Rioting, 2.

99 Sentence, 4.

Unlawful Assembly armed with
Deadly Weapon-
See SuMM.vKY Trial, 2.



Digitized by



Google



io8d



tolGEST OF CRIMINAL CASSS.



Unlawful Detention—

Unlawful Detention for an Unlaw-
ful Purpose — Criminal Procedure Code(A6i
X. of 1882J, s. sSt— 'Infant, Custody qfj] A
Hindu girl, under the age of 14 years, went
of her own accord to a Mission House, where
she was received and allowed to remain. The
mother and husband of the girl thereupon
applied to the Magistrate, who took proceed-
ings under s. 551 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. The Lad^ Superintendent of the Mis-
sion House denied that the girl was legally
married, and alleged that she was practically
being brought up with the connivance of the
mother to a life of prostitution. The Ma-
gistrate, after recording evidence, found that
the girl was legally married ; that the other
allegation was not established ; and that, al-
though she went to and remained in the Mis-
sion House of her own free will, there was,
under the circumstances, an unlawful deten-
tion for an unlawful purpose. He further
found that there were no facts established
which would disentitle the husband or the
mother to the custody of the girl, and passed
an order under the section directing the girl
to be restored to her mother. Held upon the
facts as found by the Magistrate, as it was
immaterial whether the girl did or did not
consent to remain at the Mission House,
there was an unlawful detention within the
meaning of these words as used in the section,
as the girl was kept against the will of those
who were lawfully entitled to have charge of
her. Held also that s. 55 1, applying only as
it does to women and female children, must
not be construed so as to make it include pur-
poses which, although not unlawful in them-
selves, might only become so when enter-
tained towards a child in opposition to the
wishes of its guardian, but that the purpose,
whether entertained towards a woman or a
femalechild, must be in itself unlawful. Held,
consequently, that, in the circumstances of
the case, there was no detention for an un-
lawful purpose, and that the Magistrate had
no power to make the order. Held further
that, although the Magistrate had no power
under the section to make the order he did,
it did not follow that the Court should direct
the girl to be restored to the custody of the
Lady Superintendent, even if it had the power
to (u> so, and that, having regard to the cir-
cumstances of the case, there was nothing to
justify such an order being passed. — Abra-
ham V. Mahtabo, I. L. R., 16 Cal. 487 [see
p. 924 of this book].

Unnatural Death—
Omission to report. See Causing Dis-
appearance of Evidence; Infor-
mation TO Police.
Unskilled Medical Practitioner—*
See R.\SH and Negligent Act, 2.



Urgent Oases of Ntusanoe—

Temporary Order in. See Public Nui-
sance, 15 — 19.

Using Forged Doomnent—
See Forged Document.
n Jury, 5.



Vagueness of Charge—
See False Evidence, i.

Valuable Security—

Sanad conferring Title of Dignity not a.
See Forged Document, 2,

Venomous Snake-
Negligence in Respect of. See Culpable
Homicide, 3.

Verdict of Jury-
See Jury.
Appeal upon Facts from. Sec Appeal bt

Local Governme.nt, 2.
Sessions Judge disagreeing with. See

Appeal, i.

Verdict on Offenoe proved, though
not ch€urged—

See Jury, 4.

Vexation and Delay-
See Possession, 2.

Village Chaukidar—

Extortion committed in Presence of.
See Extortion.



w.

Waiver by Accused-
Effect of. See Irregularity, i.

Waiving of Privilego—

See European British Subject.

W€WTant—

Attachment on Expired. See Public Ser-
vant, 3.

Warrant and Summons Oases-
See Joinder of Charges, 2.

Warrant Case-
Absence of Complainant in. See Dis-
charge, 6.

Way-
Right of. See Public Nuisance, 7, g.

Withdrawal—

By Magistrate of a Case of Public Nui-
sance. See Public Nuisance, 4.

Of Case by Magistrate. See Security
TO KEEP the Peace, i.

Of Pardon. See Pardon.

Witness celled by Court-
Right of Accused to cross-examine. See
Cross-examination.



Digitized by



Google



DIGEST OF CRIMINAL CASES.



loSi



WitneeseeH-

Depositions of, not the Property of Po«
lice. See Legal Practitioners'
Act, I.

Duty of Magistrate to suaiinofi. See
PossBssioN, 14.

Evidence of, taken on CoDMiissioo,.wheii
Admissible* See EviDBNCft, X

Examination oL See Revival of Pro-
secution.

For Defence, Examination of. See Pos-
session, a.

Magistrate when not a Competent. See
Discharge.

Not called for Defence. See Rtoirr of
Reply.

Oral Evidence at Sessions Court as to
Statements of, in Magistrate's Court.
See Discharge, 9,

Statements of, to Police during Investi-
gation. See Statements to Police
DURING Investigation.

Tendering of, for Cross-examination. See
Right of Reply, 3.

To be left to Pleaders for Examination or
Cross-examination. See Confes-
sion, 7.

WitneBses for Defence—

I. Witnesses for Defence — Evidence
— Summoning witnesses — Refusal of a Ma-
gistrate to summon prisoner* smitnesses~^ri-
minal Procedure Code (Act X, of 1872), s.
J59.] A Magistrate b not at liberty to re-
fuse to summon a witness tendered by an ac-
cused person, except on the groun<b speci-
fied in 8. 359 of the Criminal Procedure
Code ; and if he does refuse, he is bound to
proceed under that section. The fact that
the accused declines to examine a witness is
no reason for refusing to summon him to
meet fresh evidence given subsequent to the
defence beine clos^ — Deela Mahton v.
Sheo Dyal Koeri, I. L. R., 6 Cal. 714 [see
p. 309 of this book].

a. Witnesses for Defence — Summon^
ing and attendance of-^Compelling attend-
ance tf— Evidence—Criminal Procedure
Code (Act X. of 1SS2J, s, 257-'] Certain wit-
nesses who had been summoned for the ac-
cused failed to appear on the day of trial,
and the Deputy Magistrate refused to ad-
journ the hearing, or to issue fresh processes
for the attendance of the defendants' wit-
nesses, on the ground that thev were all
friends of the accused, who would come to
Court if the accused desired it. The prison-
ers were convicted. Held that the convic-
tion must be set aside, the Magistrate having
once granted processes, he was bound to as-
sist the accused in enforcing the attendance
of his witnesses.^Empress v. Dhananjoi
Chaudhuri, I. L. R., 10 Cal. 931 [see p. 557
of this book].



WitnesseB for Prosecution—

1. Witnesses for Prosecution — Cri*
minal Procedure Code (Act X, of 187 2j, s. 21$
— Evidence for the prosecution — Examina*
turn of witnesses,'] A Magistrate is bound,
before be discharges an accused person un-
der s. 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to examine all the witnesses, and should not
refuse to ejeamine witnesses simply because
their evidence will be to the same effect as
that already taken for the prosecufioik—
Johardi Sheik «. Hematulla, I. L. R.»3CaI.
389 [see p. 122 of this book]»

2. Witnesses for Prosbcution - Re-
calling witnesses, Time for — Right of ae^
cused to recall witnesses for prosecution —
Criminal Procedure Code (Act X. of J872J,
ss. 217, 218.'] Reading ss. 21 7 and 218 of the
Criminal Procedure C<^e together, it appears
that, if an accused person desires to recall
and cross- examine the witnesses for the pro-
secution, the time at which he should ex-
press such desire is when the charge is read
over to him, and he is called upon to make
his defence ; and although it is in the dis-
cretion of the Magistrate to recall the wit-
nesses at a subsequent stage of the case, the
accused has no right to insist upon the wit-
nesses being recalled. — Faiz AH v. Koromdi,
I. L. R., 7 Cal. 28 [see p. 324 of this book].

3. Witnesses for Prosecution — Evi*
dence — Duty of prosecution — Inferences to
be drawn on failure to call witnesses^^Mis*
direction."] It is primd facie the duty of the
prosecution to call all the witnesses who
prove their connection with the transactions
connected with the prosecution, and who
must be able to give important information.
If such witnesses are not called without suffi-
cient reason being shown, the Court may
properly draw an inference adverse to the
prosecution. The only thing that can relieve
the prosecutor from calling such witnesses
is the reasonable belief that, if called, they
would not speak the truth. No such cor-
responding inference can be drawn against
an accused.— Empress v. Dhunno lOizi, I.
L. R., 8 Cal. 121 [see p. 373 of this book],

4. Witnesses for Prosecution — Duty
of the prosecution to produce.] Where a Ses-
sions Judge fi^ave it as a sufficient reason for
the non-production of certain witnesses in
Court on the part of the prosecution that
they had been examined by the committing
Magistrate a^nst the express wish of the
police-officer in charge of the prosecution,
held that that was not a valid ground for
the non-production of the witnesses in the
Sessions Court In conducting a case for
the prosecution, all the persons who are
alleged or known to have knowledge of the
facts ought to be brought before the Court

I. L. R., Cal 136.



Digitized by



Google



I082



DIGEST OF CRIMINAL CASES.



WitnoBses for Prosecution (c^.)—

and examined. — Empress v. Ram Sahai
Lall, I. L. R., 10 Cal. 1070 [sec p. 579 of
this book].

Words said to be Obscene—

See Transfer of Case, 3.

Worship—

ConfiscatioQ of Arms used for Purposes
of. See Arms Act.

Writing to refiresh Memory-
See Refreshing Witness's Memory, 2.

Wrongftil Oonflnement—

Wrongful Confinement — Penal Code
(AH XLV, of i86qjj s. 346.'] In an order to



WrongftQ Confinement {contd,)-^

render a person liable under s. 346 ol the
Penal Cocte, it must be shown that the wrong-
ful confinement was of such a nature as to
indicate an intention that the person confin-
ed should not be discovered. — ^Empress v.
Sreenath Banerjee, I. L. R., 9 CaL 221 [see
p. 467 of this book].

See False Charge.

WrongftQ Loss-
See Possession, 2.

Wrongftil Restraint—

See Mischief, i.



^..^x.



Ol



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google





Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google






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 166 of 166)