The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday March 8 1937

The observations of Cunliffe in Morlan v. Emperor with regard to the duty of the Judge with regard to the suspicion in the mind o-Z the Judge as regards the genuinness of the case for the prosecution aid that for the defence in charging the jury dserve notice. [...] But in the case of prosecution the guilt of the accused must be proved to the hilt and if there is suspicion as regards the genuineness of the prosecution case the accused would always be entitled to the benefit of doubt and it is the duty of the Judge to point that out. [...] Vide the case of Shama Charan Roy v. Abdul lCabeer (3 C. W. N. 158) where it is laid down that the Civil Court of superior jurisdiction in the District is vested generally speaking with the powers exercised by the Kazi under the Muhammadan Regime." In the latter case if she dissolves the marriage on the violation of any nuptial terms it is imperative on her to sue for a declaration that her [...] The prayer for dissolution being in the nature of the parenthetical one the suit was undoubtedly wrongly filed in the Court of a District Judge with such valuation and their Lorships were justified in ordering for return of the plaint to the Plaintiff for presenttion of the same to the Munsif." Such sort 'of declaratory suits should be filed in the competent Court under sec. [...] In some cases the decision of the question whether the person in possession of the atache property is in possession on his own accoufft or on account of the judgment-debtor depends upon a consideration of the title to the property and therefore in such cases it' is necessary even in a summary lquiry under rr.