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. Ram Kishan

Emperor vs Ram Kishan

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 26, 1917
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/457467

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.

Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 110, 123 - Security for good behaviour--Security furnished--Record not required to he sent to the Sessions Judge for orders. - - 1. Ram Kishan was called upon under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to furnish security for good behaviour on the ground that he was a man...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Ram Kishan

Legal References

Reported In
(1918)ILR40All39

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, sections 110, 123 - security for good behaviour--security furnished--record not required to he sent to the sessions judge for orders. - - 1. ram kishan was called upon under section 110 of the code of criminal procedure to furnish security for good behaviour on the ground that he was a man of a dangerous of d desperate character. the officiating district magistrate of bareilly, who tried the case, made an order under section 118 directing ram kishan to furnish security to be of good for two years......applicant did not press the plea. in the case of rai isri pershad v. queen-empress (1), it was observed that the section has reference to a case where default is made in furnishing the security required, and that if security is given, the section does not apply and no reference to the court of session is necessary. security having been furnished in this case, it was not necessary to submit the case to the sessions judge. as the order in thee present case to the sessions judge. as the order in the present case was made by the officiating district magistate, i have allowed the whole of the evidence to be laid before me by the learned counsel for the applicant. in view of that evidence, which shows that there are specific instances in which the accused had been maltreating people in trying to extort money and had been extorting money, it cannot be held that he has retrieved his character. he had already been convicted six times, and it is not satisfactorily shown that since his last conviction in 1914 he has improved his character. on the contrary, the evidence goes to prove that he is still pursuing his old habits. under these circumstances i feel that i should not be justified in interfering with the order of the court below. i accordingly dismiss the application.

Full Judgment

Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. Ram Kishan was called upon under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to furnish security for good behaviour on the ground that he was a man of a dangerous of d desperate character. The officiating District Magistrate of Bareilly, who tried the case, made an order under Section 118 directing Ram Kishan to furnish security to be of good for two years. As the security was furnished he did not submit the case to the Sessions Judge under Section 123 of the Code. The first plea taken in the application for revision to this Court is that the learned Magistrate acted contrary to law in not complying with the provisions of Section 123, which is to the effect that is a person who has been ordered to furnish security dose not give such security, the Court may direct him to be detained in prison pending the orders of the Sessions judge. The learned Counsel for the applicant did not press the plea. In the case of Rai Isri Pershad v. Queen-Empress (1), It was observed that the Section has reference to a case where default is made in furnishing the security required, and that if security is given, the Section does not apply and no reference to the Court of Session is necessary. Security having been furnished in this case, it was not necessary to submit the case to the Sessions Judge. As the order in thee present case to the Sessions Judge. As the order in the present case was made by the officiating District Magistate, I have allowed the whole of the evidence to be laid before me by the learned Counsel for the applicant. In view of that evidence, which shows that there are specific instances in which the accused had been maltreating people in trying to extort money and had been extorting money, it cannot be held that he has retrieved his character. He had already been convicted six times, and it is not satisfactorily shown that since his last conviction in 1914 he has improved his character. On the contrary, the evidence goes to prove that he is still pursuing his old habits. Under these circumstances I feel that I should not be justified in interfering with the order of the Court below. I accordingly dismiss the application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial