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 January 12 1925

The complete confidence that is felt by the general public in the adminitration of justice by the courts is largely due to the fact that the widest publicity is given to their proceedings and the mere suspicion that there can be any suppression at the request of the Executive for scalled “reasons of State” is to be deplored. [...] The natural inference was that the pockets of the coat were not capacious enough to hold the revolver and that the story of the revolver had been introduced to improve the case. [...] cumstances appearing in evidence against the accused namely the accused' being put sort of cross-examination may be the likely re sult in some cases owing to the inexperience or inadvertence of the Magistrate but that surely ought not to stand in the way of the strict eforcement of the provisions of the law. [...] It may be pointed out that so far as the Calcutta High Court is concerned for a period of about ten years since 1912 the date of the decision in the case of Torah v. Haris (which was followed and confirmed in 1914 by the decision in the case of Ahmadulla v. Hakaru) it was the governing authority on the subject and it was only recently in 1922 that we get for the first time the report of a con [...] id! The case of Nalini v. Fulmani had been decided before the decision of the Full Bench in Dayamayi's case while the view taken in the decision in the case of Tarak v. Haris was upheld by the decision in the case of A hmadulla v. Hakaru or Prayaq which was given after and on a consideration of the view taken by the Full Bench and there is no reason why it should not be followed.