Lalta Prasad Vs. Emperor

Lalta Prasad vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 17, 1920

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/482434

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/482434
Court: Allahabad
Judge: P.C. Banerji, J.
Decided On: Dec 17, 1920
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 283 - Obstruction of public road--Essentials of offence--Principal and agent--Liability of principal for agents act. - - The obstruction complained of was the playing of certain girders on the road.

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lalta Prasad

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1921All192; 61Ind.Cas.59

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 283 - obstruction of public road--essentials of offence--principal and agent--liability of principal for agents act. - - the obstruction complained of was the playing of certain girders on the road.p.c. banerji, j.1. the applicant has been convicted of having caused obstruction to a public road. the obstruction complained of was the playing of certain girders on the road. it appears that the applicant is in charge of a jain temple which was being repaired. there was a contractor for the supply of materials and the extractor supplied the girders. there is nothing to show that the girders were planed on the road under the authority or the direction of the applicant. if the contractor or his servants placed the girders on the road, and if there is nothing to prove that they did be under the direction or with the satisfaction of the applicant, the applicant could not be convicted of having caused obstruction to a public road. in the present case there is no evidence to prove that the applicant authorised the obstruction. his convention therefore, was illegal, i allow the application set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine imposed on the applicant if paid, be refunded.

Full Judgment

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. The applicant has been convicted of having caused obstruction to a public road. The obstruction complained of was the playing of certain girders on the road. It appears that the applicant is in charge of a Jain temple which was being repaired. There was a contractor for the supply of materials and the extractor supplied the girders. There is nothing to show that the girders were planed on the road under the authority or the direction of the applicant. If the contractor or his servants placed the girders on the road, and if there is nothing to prove that they did be under the direction or with the satisfaction of the applicant, the applicant could not be convicted of having caused obstruction to a public road. In the present case there is no evidence to prove that the applicant authorised the obstruction. His convention therefore, was illegal, I allow the application set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine imposed on the applicant if paid, be refunded.

Same Parties Lalta Prasad vs Emperor Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge P.C. Banerji, J.

Land Acquisition