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

1949 Supreme(Cal) 176

HARRIES
Badruddin and Sons – Appellant
Versus
Corporation of Calcutta – Respondent


Advocates:
Sudhangsu Sekhar Mukherjee and Mihir Kumar Sarkar - for Appellant.Pashupati Ghose - for Respondent.

JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal from an order of a Municipal Magistrate convicting the appellant of an offence under S. 386(1)(a), Calcutta Municipal Act read with Sch. 19 of the Act.

2. The charge was that the appellant conducted the business of electroplating or nickel-plating at certain premises without the necessary permission or license from the Corporation.

3. It seems that two previous prosecutions had been brought against the appellant and in each case he had pleaded guilty and was convicted. On this occasion, however, he pleaded not guilty. He was found guilty by the learned Magistrate, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of as 25 per diem over a period of time.

4. Mr. Sudhangshu Mukherjee has taken a number of points and I shall deal with the points seriatim. He first contended that the trial was invalid by reason of the fact that the Magistrate on one day heard the case or arguments in the case in the absence of the accused person. It appears that on 19th May which was a date to which the hearing had been adjourned the accused was absent and a medical certificate was tendered with a view to showing that be was too ill to attend. The learned Magistrate did not accept this ex



















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