cover image: The Calcutta Weekly Notes  Law Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the English Law Courts  Monday  February 9  1920

Premium

20.500.12592/hjdx7s

The Calcutta Weekly Notes Law Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the English Law Courts Monday February 9 1920

1920

The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction for murder on the ground of misdirection of the jury by the Judge on the question of the effect of drunkenness on criminal responsibility and substituted a coviction for manslaughter and sentenced the prisoner to 20 years’ penal servitude. [...] Owing to the importance of the question of criminal responsibility connected with drunkenness the appeal was taken to the House of Lords on the Attorney-General’s certificate. [...] But the Lord Chancellor to remove the suspense from the prisoner’s mind intimated that this would not have been done had it left the prisoner in doubt as to his fate.’ The Home Secretary who exercises the prergative of the Crown also intimated to their Lordships that in any event he would advise His Majesty to respite the sentence on the lines of the Court of Criminal Appeal. [...] The Board of Trade contended that the section authorises the prhibition by the Government of the import of any goods whatsoever they might name in the Proclamation. [...] It cannot consequently be maintained that notwithstaning the execution and registration of the deed of gift the property continued to form part of the estate of the donor and there is thus no escape from the position that the heir did not succeed to it by right of inheritance." The observation of his Lordship Chatterjea in course of his judgment in Umesh v. Joy Nath (22 C. W. N. 747) as fou
law
Pages
4
Published in
India
SARF Document ID
sarf.100104
Segment Pages Author Actions
The Calcutta Weekly Notes
liii-lvi unknown view

Related Topics

All