Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.

Calcutta High Court
Jeebunkisto Roy And Anr. vs Shib Chunder Das on 31 July, 1884
Equivalent citations: (1884) ILR 10 Cal 1027
Bench: Tottenham, Norris


Tottenham, J. (Norris, J., concurring)

1. We think that the order of the Sessions Judge directing a further enquiry in this case is not warranted by law. It seems to us that the law allows a further enquiry only where there has not been a full enquiry and where further evidence is disclosed. The application to the Judge was to the effect that the evidence recorded by the Deputy Magistrate was sufficient for the conviction of the accused, and the accused ought to have been convicted. The Sessions Judge seems to have endorsed the applicant’s opinion, and upon that ground ordered the further enquiry. It seems to us that the accused having been discharged after a full enquiry by a competent Court, he is entitled to the benefit of that discharge, unless some further evidence is disclosed.

2. The order of the Sessions Judge will be set aside and the proceedings stopped.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.175 seconds.