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 Short Notes of Important Decisions of other High Courts in India Monday September 14 1931

For the High Court as to interference in revision the word in the statute is may ": for the lower Courts as to the duty to adjourn the word there is " shall." While the High Court may not in its dicretion interfere with the result of a trial although it was continued after refusal to adjourn and may confider whether the application for adjournment was bond fide it by no means follows tha [...] There is thus nothing to justify the suggestion of their Lordships that the section should be so amended as to provide that no application for transfer will be heard unless it is made sufficiently early to allow time for the orders of the High Court to reach the Subordinate Court bfore the day fixed for the trial. [...] But whatever may be the justice of the observations made by the learned Judges we would recall attention to the fact that even they do not recognise any discretion of the Magistrates to refuse adjournment. [...] 190 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code on a charge sent by the police of an offence triable summarily and the Magistrate tries the accused on that charge summarily the trial is not bad bcause the report originally made to the police shows an offence which is not triable sumarily unless the Magistrate comes to the finding that the offence originally reported is established in which case [...] When an ex parte decree is set aside by the trial Court within the time prescribed for an appeal but subsequently the order is set aside and the original ex parte decree restored by a higher Court the period of 90 clays for filing an appeal against the ex parte decree runs not from the date on which the decree was originally passed but from the date when the decree is restored by the higher Cour