High CourtsDivision Bench(1922) 01 CAL CK 0005

Sita Nath Bhagat and Others vs Ramkishore Mondal and Another

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 19 January 1922 · Citation: AIR 1922 Cal 280 : 69 Ind. Cas. 272

HON’BLE JUDGES
Walmsley, J · Suhrawardy, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 133 words

Walmsley, J.—I think this Rule must be made absolute on the ground on Which it was issued. On the 28th June last before, the learned Magistrate disposed of the case, a Hajira was filed showing that thirteen witnesses were present in Court to give evidence on behalf of the second party. None of them, however, was ''examined. There is nothing on the record to suggest, that'' it was at the wish, of the second party that the witnesses were not examined.

2.

In my opinion, the Rule must be mads absolute and the order passed u/s 143, Clause (1), Criminal Procedure Code, must be set aside and the learned Magistrate, after hearing the witnesses produced by the second party must dispose of the case in accordance with law.

Suhrawardy, J.

3.

I agree.