Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Meher Sheikh And Ors. vs Emperor on 9 March, 1931

Istahar Khondkar And Ors. vs Emperor on 25 February, 1935

Alone they would not be enough to constitute any offence. But if the Court decided to presume the existence of other facts, then the proved facts and the presumed facts together would constitute an offence. The doubt therefore arises about whether the Court will or will not presume a fact, and which fact, not about which offence the facts which can be proved will constitute within the meaning of Sub-section 236 and 237. Upon this point there is a paragraph in the report of the judgment in Mehr Sheikh v. Emperor 1931 Cal 414, supra, to which I was a party, which seems to be inaccurate and misleading. Therein it is stated at p. 947 that:
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Goloke Behari Takal And Ors. vs Emperor on 20 July, 1937

51. I am not at all satisfied the present case can be brought within this section. I do not think that upon the facts which the prosecution set out to prove in this case, there could be any doubt as to whether the conspiracy was one to commit both the offences under Sections 302 and 201, or one to commit either the one or the other of them, or one to commit none of these offences, but a different offence or offences, say, under Section 325 or Section 326. Nor could it be said that it was doubtful whether the facts would make out a conspiracy at all or some other substantive offence either under Section 302 or under Section 325 or Section 326. The doubt referred to in Section 236 is merely as to the particular sections of the penal statute applicable to the facts, not a doubt as to the facts which can be proved. It is sufficient on this point to refer to the decisions in Meher Sheik v. Emperor AIR 1931 Cal 4l4 and Istahar Khondkar v. Emperor Reading the two sections together, it is not difficult to understand their true scope and object. As the words clearly indicate, these sections contemplate cases where at the commencement of the trial there is uncertainty whether the facts which the prosecution expect or undertake to prove, if proved, will constitute offence A or B or 0 and the uncertainty is resolved at the end of the trial, showing which particular offence out of these was actually committed. In such a case, it is provided that the accused may be charged with any one or more of such offences, but may be finally convicted of one other or others of them though not actually charged. The uncertainty must necessarily be an uncertain by arising out of a postulated set of acts, not an uncertainty regarding the facts which the prosecution may be ultimately able to establish. As I understand it, Section 237 does not deal with a case where the evidence falls short of proving the offence which the prosecution had set out to prove; that would be governed by Section 238 if it could be made to apply. The present case could come only under Sub-section (2) of Section 238 if at all. This sub-section is in these terms:
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Kishanlal Sahu vs Madhabananda Pani on 6 January, 1965

In a case reported in Meher Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Lah 884 it was held by Coldstream, J. that although in cases under Section 225-B the proper person to make the complaint is the officer from whom the escape or rescue has been effected, still a complaint by another person aware of the facts is not a nullity. In such a case either Section 195 or Section 476, Cr. P. C. has no application but a Magistrate is competent to make a complaint as a common informer.
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajabuddin Mondal vs Emperor on 30 June, 1933

5. Bela Bibi wag married, and was 15 years old at the time when the alleged offence was committed. She had gone outside her husband's hut at night in order to make water, and had been seized, taken away and raped by the two accused. Having regard to the decision in Meher Sheik v. Emperor , it is clear that the case did not come within the provisions of Section 236, Criminal P.C. It is equally clear that the ingredients of the two offences of kidnapping and abduction are different. The charge not only referred to each of these distinct offences in the alternative, but failed to give any particulars to show which kind of kidnapping was alleged, or the age of the woman, or alternatively whether unsoundness of mind was alleged. Such a charge leaves the accused without any sufficient indication of the case which he will have to meet. Whether he must came prepared with evidence to show that the girl was over 16, or not in the keeping of her lawful guardian, or that she was taken with the guardian's consent, or whether he must direct his efforts to proving that she came away of her own free will and without the use of force or deceit. It is not sufficient merely to charge the accused in the bare words of a section of the Code. Particulars must always be given sufficient to give him notice of the matter with which he is charged (Section 222, Criminal P.C.). The charge in the present case was defective in these respects, but I cannot say that the omissions have occasioned a failure of justice. Consequently, Section 537, Criminal P.C., applies, and the conviction cannot be set aside on this ground alone.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Moktarali And Ors. vs Emperor on 1 February, 1945

956 a quotation is made in the judgment from a report in Meher Sheik v. Emperor in which there is in turn a reference to Section 367, Criminal P.C. Lort-Williams J., in referring to this notes that this must be a misprint for Section 237. With the greatest respect it appears clear that there was no misprint, and that the reference is to the very provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely Section 367, which provides for, and in appropriate cases of doubt distinctly requires, judgment to be passed in the alternative.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

In Re: Raman Ambalam And Ors. vs Unknown on 25 July, 1950

These are the only cases of our Court referred to at the bar before us, But a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Meher Shekh v. Emperor, 59 Gal. 8 : (A.i.r. (18) 1931 Cal 411 : 32 Cr. L. J. 892) was brought to our notice by Mr, C. K. Venkatanarasimham. What was held there was that with regard to an offence under Section 395, Penal Code, it cannot be said that offences under Sections 448 and 323, Penal Code, are minor ones so as to be necessarily involved in a charge under s. 395. We have already stated that it is difficult to say that Section 395 is a combination of any other offence with Section 323 or 448.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1