Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. Krishna Lal

Emperor vs Krishna Lal

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 25, 1916
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/450029

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Act No. V of 1861 (Police Act), Sections 91 and 32 - Jatrawals--Competence of police to issue general order for the control of the business of Jatrawals. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Krishna Lal

Legal References

Reported In
(1917)ILR39All131

Excerpt

act no. v of 1861 (police act), sections 91 and 32 - jatrawals--competence of police to issue general order for the control of the business of jatrawals. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far..........having obtained a licence.4. a reference to the language of section 82 of the act and of the three preceding sections satisfies me that the superintendent of police had no authority under section 31 of the police act to issue any general order of this kind. the order is ultra vires. the only licences which can lawfully be issued by a superintendent of police are those referred to in section 30 of the act in connection with the conduct of assemblies and processions and the use of music on the occasion of festivals and ceremonies. there is no authority to regulate by licence the resort of any persons or class of persons to any public place or thoroughfare, nor can it be argue 1 that because the police are, under section 31, assigned the duty of 'keeping order' at places of public resort and of 'preventing obstructions' on certain occasions in such places, they are authorized to give any general order of the kind now under consideration. i hold therefore that the accused was not liable to conviction under section 32 of the act, the order which he is found to have disobeyed was not a lawful order. i set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded.

Full Judgment

Lindsay, J.

1. This is an application for revision on behalf of one Krishna Lal who has been convicted of an offence under Section 32 of the Police Act (V of 1861). The conviction has been upheld in appeal by the District Magistrate. The above mentioned section of the Police Act provides for the punishment of persons who oppose or disobey orders issued under the three preceding sections of the Act or who violate the conditions of any licence granted for the use of music or for the conduct of assemblies and processions. The order which the accused is said in this instance to have disobeyed purports to have been issued under Section 31 of the Act and the principal matter to be considered here is whether this Order Is valid and one which could lawfully issue under Section 31.

2. A copy of the Order Is on the record. It is in the form of a printed proclamation issued over the name of the Superintendent of Police, Benares, and contains elaborate directions for the conduct of jatrawals whose business takes them to the Railway Station at Moghnl Sarai for the purpose of escorting pilgrims to Benares. It is not necessary to refer in detail to all the rules set out in this proclamation. It is sufficient to say that it is ordered that no one plying the trade of a jatrawal is to be allowed to frequent the Moghal Sarai Railway Station and the thoroughfares and other public places in Moghal Sarai without having first obtained a pass or licence from the Superintendent of Police or District Magistrate.

3. The accused here who describes himself as a gangaputra is said to have been acting as a jatrawal in Moghal Sarai without having obtained a licence.

4. A reference to the language of Section 82 of the Act and of the three preceding sections satisfies me that the Superintendent of Police had no authority under Section 31 of the Police Act to issue any general order of this kind. The Order Is ultra vires. The only licences which can lawfully be issued by a Superintendent of Police are those referred to in Section 30 of the Act in connection with the conduct of assemblies and processions and the use of music on the occasion of festivals and ceremonies. There is no authority to regulate by licence the resort of any persons or class of persons to any public place or thoroughfare, nor can it be argue 1 that because the police are, under Section 31, assigned the duty of 'keeping order' at places of public resort and of 'preventing obstructions' on certain occasions in such places, they are authorized to give any general order of the kind now under consideration. I hold therefore that the accused was not liable to conviction under Section 32 of the Act, the order which he is found to have disobeyed was not a lawful order. I set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial