SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Cal) 52

P.B.MUKHARJI
NEMAI MONDAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Krishna Benode Ray, SUDHINDRA KUMAR PALIT

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal comes up before me for decision under Section 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code because two learned Judges of the Division Bench were equally divided in opinion Niyogi, J. was of the opinion that the appellants were guilty and should be convicted under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Das, J. , on the other hand, was of the opinion that the conviction should he set aside.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY there were ten appellants. Both the learned Judges of the Division Bench, however, were unanimous that the conviction of the first appellant, Nemai Mondal alias Nemai Chandra Mondal under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code should be set aside as also the conviction of appellants Nos. 9 and 10, namely, Probodh Mondal and Kanai Mondal, under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, appellants Nos. 1, 9 and 10 have been set at liberty and there is no difference of opinion about them. The difference of opinion that comes up before me for decision is with respect to appellants Nos. 2 to 8; namely, Jogen, Dulal, Haren, Anukul, Ramen, Kartik and












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top