Skip to content

Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Encyclopedia & Legal Research

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia & Herzegovina Botswana Brazil British V. Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Carrib. Netherlands Cayman Island Chile China Colombia Congo DRC Congo Republic Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czechia Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El alvador Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France French Polyn Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran ​Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar/Burma Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Lucia St Vincent & Grenadines Samoa Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka St. Kitts & Nevis Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UAE U.S. Virgin Islands Uganda Ukraine UK United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia

  • Home
    • SITE UPDATES
  • Constitutions
  • Dictionary
  • Law Exam
  • Pleading
  • Index
  • Notifications
  • Indian Law
  • Articles
  • Forum
  • Home
  • 2021
  • February
  • 13
  • Judicial Probity of Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta-1934
  • CIVIL

Judicial Probity of Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta-1934

2 min read

© Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
image_printPrint

CHIEF PRESIDENCY MAGISTRATE, CALCUTTA.

HC Deb 30 October 1934 vol 293 cc17-817

Captain A. EVANS asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has now received a report from the Government of Bengal on the case of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales); whether an inquiry has been made into the magistrate’s conduct who was responsible in this case; and whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare) Yes, Sir; I have now received a report from the Government of Bengal on the questions raised in this House regarding the conduct of the Hon. S. K. Sinha as Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. In two cases, one of which was concerned with the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales), Mr. Sinha can be considered to have committed an error of judgment; but after reviewing all the circumstances of these two cases, the Government of Bengal have satisfied themselves that there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Sinha did not act throughout in perfect good faith, or to cast any reflection on his judicial probity. They are also satisfied that there is no foundation for the allegations that have been made in the remaining cases. Mr. Sinha’s judicial conduct has already been passed under review by the Calcutta, High Court, and after taking the comments of that Court into account the Government of Bengal have decided that there is no justification for executive action in the matter. Their view is supported by the Government of India and after a careful examination of the information supplied to me I find myself in entire agreement. Out of 638 appealable cases disposed of by Mr. Sinha and 238 actual appeals, only 30 have succeeded. The percentage of successful appeals to appeals is much below the percentage for the courts of First Class Magistrates in Bengal as a whole.


image_printPrint

Related

Tags: UKParliamentDebate

Continue Reading

Previous: Bengal District Act-1836
Next: Abolition of Professorship of Hindu Law in Sanskrit College at Calcutta-30/04/1872

Updates

Epistle of Epicurus to Herodotus (260BCE) 1

Epistle of Epicurus to Herodotus (260BCE)

Will of Epicurus (270 BCE) 2

Will of Epicurus (270 BCE)

Epicurus and his 40 Doctrines (300 BCE) 3

Epicurus and his 40 Doctrines (300 BCE)

Legal and Social Doctrines legal article 4

Legal and Social Doctrines

National Hydrogen Mission in 2021 to develop Hydrogen as a fuel for transportation Home-ministry 5

National Hydrogen Mission in 2021 to develop Hydrogen as a fuel for transportation

Indian DIKSHA platform for providing quality e-content for school education in States/UTs Government of india 6

Indian DIKSHA platform for providing quality e-content for school education in States/UTs

RBI Integrated Ombudsman Scheme-2021 7

RBI Integrated Ombudsman Scheme-2021

CONSTITUTION IPC CRPC CPC EVIDENCE DV POCSO IT IP TP JUVENILE CONTRACT SPECIFIC RELIEF CONSUMER ARBITRATION COMPANY LIMITATION FAMILY LAWS POLLUTION CONTROL BANKING INSURANCE

DOCUMENTS GLOSSARIES JUDGMENTS

  • E-Books 2022  More Documents

Search Google

  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • HISTORY
  • PHILOSOPHY
  • RELIGION
  • HINDU LAW
  • HUMAN RIGHTS
  • ENVIRONMENT
  • MEDICAL
  • MUSLIM LAW
  • Contact Us
  • About
  • Disclaimers
  • RSS
  • Privacy Policy
  • Forum
© Advocatetanmoy by Law library.