High CourtsDivision Bench

Mailamdi Fakir vs Taripulla Pramanik

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 25 April 1882 · Citation: (1882) ILR (Cal) 644

HON’BLE JUDGES
McDonell, J · Field, J
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 127 words

McDonell, J.—There has been great delay on the part of the Sessions Judge in making this reference. The explanation of the Honorary Magistrates who sat on the Bench and are alive ought to have been submitted. The record says that the charge was u/s 352; and there is no serious contention that anything else was intended. So much of the order as directs the accused to be imprisoned until he gives security is bad, and a definite period not exceeding one year should have been inserted in this part of the order.

2.

Under all these circumstances we think it will be sufficient to set aside so much of the order as requires recognizance and security to keep the peace, and we set aside this portion accordingly.