Sanehi Ram Vs. Emperor

Sanehi Ram vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 09, 1919

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/474946

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/474946
Court: Allahabad
Judge: George Knox, J.
Decided On: Jan 09, 1919
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Factories Act (XII of 1911,), Section 41(a) - Employ, went contrary to provisions of Act--Offence-Proof. -

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanehi Ram

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1919All273; 49Ind.Cas.860

Excerpt

factories act (xii of 1911,), section 41(a) - employ, went contrary to provisions of act--offence-proof. - george knox, j.1. i agree with the view taken by the learned sessions judge who has referred this case that no offence under section 41 (a) of act xii of 1911 has been proved there is nothing on the record to show that the boy, whoever he was, who ran away, was employed or allowed to work contrary to any of the provisions of the act. the act being a special act, there must be definite evidence to show that the boy was either employed or being allowed to work. the boy may have been there for any purpose. we all know the nature of boys. he may have stolen in for some purpose quite apart from employment or being allowed to work. i set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, or any part of it which has been paid, be refunded.

Full Judgment

George Knox, J.

1. I agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge who has referred this case that no offence under Section 41 (a) of Act XII of 1911 has been proved There is nothing on the record to show that the boy, whoever he was, who ran away, was employed or allowed to work contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. The Act being a special Act, there must be definite evidence to show that the boy was either employed or being allowed to work. The boy may have been there for any purpose. We all know the nature of boys. He may have stolen in for some purpose quite apart from employment or being allowed to work. I set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, or any part of it which has been paid, be refunded.

Same Parties Sanehi Ram vs Emperor Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge George Knox, J.

Miscellaneous