Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.14 seconds)
In Re: Arumugham vs Unknown on 16 April, 1943 cites

Emperor vs Abla Isak on 21 January, 1931

In Emperor v. Abla Isak 55 Bom ('31) 18 A.I.R. 1931 Bom. 309 however there was no such alternative charge actually framed, and the same is true of the present case. It seems to me prima facie that Section 236 must apply to the present case and therefore that any conviction for grievous hurt would have fallen under Section 237. Section 236 runs as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Emperor vs Nirmal Kanta Roy on 1 April, 1914

The main part of the judgment in fact is taken up with reasons for distinguishing a Calcutta case which had been cited before him, Emperor v. Nirmal Kanta Roy ('14) 1 A. I. R. 1914 Cal. 901. That is admittedly a case in which there had originally been an alternative charge, and it was held that so long as the jury had not brought in a satisfactory verdict in regard to that charge, the ordering of a retrial was merely the equivalent of the continuation of the original trial on the original charge.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Queen-Empress vs Sitanath Mandal on 16 July, 1895

215 and Queen-Empress v. Sitanath Mandal ('95) 22 Cal. 1006. Those are clear cases in which the facts justify the application of Section 238. They do not deal with facts similar to those with which I have to deal to day, and therefore are of very little guidance in the decision of this particular question. As I have already said, that decision seems to me to depend almost entirely upon an analysis of the facts in this case. On that analysis it seems to me quite clear that the language of Section 403(1) must be deemed to apply to the present case, however, anomalous it may seem that the accused should be protected from further trial for an offence of which according to the opinion of five out of nine jurymen, he was actually proved guilty. In the result, then, I sustain the preliminary objection and hold that it is not open to me to try the accused upon this charge. I accordingly acquit him.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1