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

1949 Supreme(Cal) 172

HARRIES
Lalmohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
King – Respondent


Advocates:
Ajit Kumar Dutta and Satis Chandra Ray - for Petitioner.
Dwijendra Krishna Dutt - for Complainant.

ORDER :- This is a petition for revision of an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner of an offence under S. 500, Penal Code, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default of payment of the fine, to simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The charge arose out of a letter which the petitioner wrote to the Editor of the Newspaper Swaraj, for the purpose of publication. To understand the allegations in the letter it will be necessary shortly to set out the facts of the case.

3. The complainant was the owner of a certain premises No. 24, Hyat Khan Lane, Calcutta. It appears that one Amar Guha had somehow obtained possession of part of these premises, but it is common ground that later he was treated as a tenant. Amar Guha was an evacuee from East Bengal. Later, one Sitanath with the assistance of Amar Guha came into these premises and took possession of part of them, but it is clear from the findings of the learned Magistrate that the complainant never recognised Sitanath as a tenant. Eventually Sitanath and Amar Guha fell out and an incident took place in these premises which gave rise to the letter to which I have referred. It seems that i









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