1841 Αct Υλ ΧΥΙ 1832 iteg II SectioIl 2 Clause 2 1820 Reg XIV ( 8w२ ) absconded offenders implicated in the affray were not within the limits of their Estates, was not warranted by the provisions of Clauses 3, 4 and 5, Section 9, Regulation III 1812 Western Court, 25th July, Calcutta Court, 10th August, 1842 No 1373 Dxtract from a lotter from the Session Judge of Azimgurh to the Register of the Nizamut Adawlut North Western Provinces, dited the 2nd of July, 1842 “The point which I wish determined is, what is the measure of a petty offen ( ' that is, does every crime of every denomination which a Magistrate may doom to do serve no larger pen alty than that which he cun inflict under Section 8, Regulation VI 1803, thereby become a petty offence therein described or not Two cases have induced me to refer this point –In one A was convicted of contempt of Court or resistance of process and fined Rs 30 for his oftence which is specifically punishable by a higher pen ulty, does this thereby become a potty offence and is the defendant thereby precluded from appeal In the second case B a Chowdry was charged with extorting money by detaining unJustly C's cart on pretence of being compelled to furnish conveyance for the despatch of Treasure and was fined a sum less than Rs 50 Extortion is a serious charge in itself, but in this case the Magistrate det med the case light Is this a petty offince wherein the sentence is conclusive or not ” Extract from the proposed reply of the Wustern Court “This Court would unform the Session Judge that, under the law as it exists, the Magistrate must be the authority to determine the character of the offence, and the measure of punishment deemed commensurate thereto, always provided he exceed not the limitation prescribed by Sections 8 and 9 Regulation VI 1803, and that consequently there cun lie no appeal to the Sessions Court in tither of the cases mentioned Such an appeal would, moreover, have no result is respects the award of heavic r punishment with reference to the prohibition of enhancuinunt contained in Section 4 of the Act” Calcutta Court concurred Western Court, 25th July, Culcutta Court, 26th August, 1842 No 1354 Hold on a reference from the Session Judge of Furruckabad, that though it is irregular under Cluse 2, Soction 2, Rugulation II 1832, for a police officer to make a local enquiry into cases of the nature therein specified without the written applie ition thereby prescribed, it is not irregular in the M gistrate to direct the police officer to make the enquiry, whenever he may consider such a step to bv ndv 18 mblt W estern Court, 5th August, Calcutta Court, 26th Idum, 1842 No 1355 Held on a reference from the Judge of Futtehpore that parties instituting and defending suits in the Company's Courts and who reside in a foreign state, but hold lands ind other property within the limits of the British Territories, must nevertheless find security for costs, under the provisions of Regulation VAIV of 1829 Western Court, 5th August, Calcutta Court, 26th idem, 1842 J HAWKINS, Register. গবর্ণমেন্ট গেজেট ১৮৪২ । ২ সেপ্টেম্বর । \
