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

1954 Supreme(Cal) 111

K.C.CHUNDER
GOLAM AHIA – Appellant
Versus
LUTFAL HODA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.CHATTERJEE, Jnanendra Mohan

CHUNDER, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued against an order of acquittal of an accused person by a Magistrate, First Class, Burdwan, of an offence under Section 428, Penal Code.

( 2 ) IT is rather surprising that a Magistrate of the First Class is totally ignorant of the Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has riot entered at all into the facts of the case but acquitted the accused on two so-called preliminary points.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case was that the accused had excavated earth from the land of the complainant and as earth has some value, whatever may be its actual worth, the accused intended to commit mischief under Section 426 of the Code, if facts are proved. The Magistrate does not find on the facts that no earth was excavated. Therefore it is meaningless, for the Magistrate to say that the value of the loss not having been stated by the complainant the accused must be acquitted. The Magistrate would have been justified in not trying the accused for any of the graver offences like Section 427 etc. , as the value was not stated, but any value, however trifling it may be, is quite sufficient for an offence under Section 426, Penal Code, and the taking of


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