Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Reshu Kabiraj vs Emperor on 10 July, 1917

Emperor vs Phuchai And Anr. on 10 July, 1928

I also agree in the view expressed by Shamsul Huda, J., in the case of Reshu Kaviraj v. Emperor [1918] 27 C.L.J. 382 that Clause (a) of Section 109 refers to a continuous act and does not apply to a case where there is a momentary effort at concealment to avoid detection or arrest. In my opinion, passing under a false name of taking precaution to conceal one's presence or identity at a place amounting to a continuous course of conduct is what is meant by the clause. Moreover, such precautions for the purpose of concealment must be taken with a view to committing an offence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Superintendent And Remembrancer Of ... vs Isabali on 2 February, 1938

The learned Judge held that it was difficult to say that the facts found against the accused were stronger than in Reshu Kaviraj v. Emperor (1918) 5 AIR Cal 887 where the accused who was a Kaviraj was found at midnight in association with two others who had in their possession house-breaking implements. On being discovered he fled and when arrested remained silent and the explanation he subsequently gave to the Magistrate of his presence at the time and place in question was false. Even in this case the learned Judges do not seem to have adopted the view that the account given by the accused must necessarily be of general conduct apart from the circumstances in which he was found.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gobra Badia And Ors. vs Emperor on 2 July, 1929

As to the other ground, their having failed to give a satisfactory account of themselves, the facts found are undoubtedly more against the accused, but it is difficult to say that the facts are stronger than in the above case of Reshu Kabiraj v. Emperor 41 Ind. Cas. 649 : 22 C.W.N. 163 : 27 C.L.J. 382 : 18 Cr. L.J.J. 825, where a man who was a Kabiraj and a dealer was found in association with two others at midnight and with house-breaking implements in their possession: on being discovered he fled and when arrested re-mained silent and the explanation he sub-sequently gave to the Magistrate was false. It was held that he was not within Section 109. On these grounds, therefore, the Rule is made absolute.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sheikh Piru vs King-Emperor on 2 February, 1925

I also agree in the view expressed by Shamsul Huda, J. in the case of Rashu Kabiraj v. King-Emperor (1917) 27 C.L.J. 382, that Clause (a) of Section 109 refers to a continuous act and does not apply to a case where there is a momentary effort at concealment to avoid detection or arrest. In my opinion passing under a false name or taking precautions to conceal one's presence or identity at a place amounting to a continuous course of conduct is what is meant by the clause. Moreover such precautions for the purpose of concealment must be taken with a view to commit an offence. There is no finding nor any circumstance in the present case justifying an inference to this effect.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Gobra Badia And Ors. vs Emperor on 2 July, 1929

4. On the face of the above it is difficult to maintain that the accused were 'attempting to conceal their presence within the meaning of Section 109. They were residents within the jurisdiction and gave not false but true information as to their names and addresses. Then, although the District Magistrate points out that there are certain other considerations as to the contradictions in their statements, the decisions of this Court follow the principle that Section 109(a) refers to the case of a continuous act and not the case of an isolated effort at concealment : see Rashu Kabiraj v. Emperor [1917] 22 C.W.N. 163; Piru v. Emperor . The question of the accused's liability on this ground must be decided in their favour.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gagan Chandra De And Anr. vs Emperor on 16 August, 1929

Looking at it from that point of view the Magistrate is supposed to have had an information that there were persons who were taking precautions to conceal the fact that they were present within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The idea is that someone may be taking precaution to conceal himself within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction, not to conceal himself as one who hides from a policeman but to conceal the fact of his infesting the Magistrate's jurisdiction, and in that class of case if there is reason to believe that this is a precaution taken with a view to commit an offence, the Magistrate can require him to give security. It is reasonable in that view that Clauses (a) and (b) should be found together, treating a man who has no ostensible means of subsistence and cannot give satisfactory account of himself as a person of the same kind as a person trying to escape notice and to inhabit the locality without his presence in the locality becoming known, and doing this for the purpose of committing an offence. Authority on this point has been cited to us in the case of Reshu v. Emperor [1918] 22 C.W.N. 163, Piru v. Emperor and Emperor v Bhairon . The exposition of the law given in the latter case is the correct exposition of the meaning of Clause 1. It is quite true that CI. 1, Section 109, is not likely to come into operation every day. That is no reason why it should be applied to fill up any gap that there may be in the criminal law, or in a case in which it does not apply. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court say:
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1