Mirza Abid HusaIn Khan Vs. Ahmad Husain - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is frame d at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. it is not a requirement und4r section 3 of the atrocities act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint. in other words, if there is no.....atkinson, j.1. in this case the annuity which is sought to be enforced is only rs. 125 per annum. by no reasonable method of valuation can an annuity of rs. 125 per annum be worth rs. 10,000. the 110th section of the code of civil procedure, 1908, applies to the value of the annuity which is sought to be recovered, not to the value of the property upon which that annuity of rs. 125 is charged their lordships think it right to call attention to the fact that the decision in the case which has been referred to, radhakrishna ayyar v. sundaraswamier ., apparently proceeded upon supposed admission, which admission it now appears was really not made. in that case, too, the rent was rs. 1,500 odd per annum, and there was nothing inconsistent or irrational in holding that the value of that rent was over rs. 10,000. it was not seven years' purchase, whereas it is impossible that the annuity about which the controversy in this case has arisen can be worth rs. 10,000. their lordships are therefore of opinion that the appeal is incompetent, and they will so humbly advise his majesty. the appellants will pay the costs of the appeal.