Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Section 110 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kasi Sundar Roy vs Emperor on 10 February, 1904
In the case of Kasi Sunder Roy v. Emperor 31 C 419 : 1 Cr. L.J. 438 it was held that a zemindar employing lathials to threaten his tenants and use force by unyoking their bullocks and burning their houses, for the purpose of compelling the tenant to pay enhanced rents, brought himself within the mischief of Clause (e). In the present case his Naib, Hemanta, is found to have led several riots in his interest and been convicted in several cases. There is evidence that certain lathials are always employed to help his cause. The materials seem sufficient to bring him within the mischief of Clause (e) as interpreted in the case of Kasi Sunder Roy 31 C, 419 : 1 Cr. L.J. 438. The order as regards Kali Kumar, therefore, must stand and the rule must be discharged as regards him and made absolute as regards Kali Prasanna.
Section 106 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kakkal Reddi Alias Govindan And Fareed ... vs Emperor on 23 September, 1909
3. On the first ground the learned Magistrate has, no doubt, referred to one case of 1902, one of 1903 and one of 1905; but it cannot be said that these cases were not admissible in evidence: See Wahid Ali Khan v. Emperor 11 C.W.N. 789 : 6 Cr. L.J. 1 and if that be so the order of the Court below cannot be impeached on that ground.
1