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.

Hapoo Mal Vs. Emperor

Hapoo Mal vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 22, 1924
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484634

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.

Penal Code (Act XLV of I860), Section 290 - Public nuisance--Obstruction of traffic--Person responsible, for obstruction, whether guilty. - - This was not the first time that such a crowd bad collected, On a previous occasion a similar crowd had collected for the same purpose and a man had been killed owing to a s...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hapoo Mal

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
83Ind.Cas.695

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of i860), section 290 - public nuisance--obstruction of traffic--person responsible, for obstruction, whether guilty. - - this was not the first time that such a crowd bad collected, on a previous occasion a similar crowd had collected for the same purpose and a man had been killed owing to a stampede taking place in the crowd on the approach of the police.daniels, j.1. the applicant hapoo has been convicted along with a number of other persons of committing public nuisance under section 290 of the indian penal code and his conviction has been upheld by the lower appellate court. it appears, that there was a very large crowd of persons engaged in satta gambling in front of the shops of the accused and other persons and that this crowd was so great as to stop the traffic in the street for the space of half an hour. this was not the first time that such a crowd bad collected, on a previous occasion a similar crowd had collected for the same purpose and a man had been killed owing to a stampede taking place in the crowd on the approach of the police. the trial court acquitted the owners of the satta shops except the accused but convicted him on the ground that he was outside among the crowd. the lower appellate court held that the accused in fact was outside but disagreed with the reasoning of the trial court. if a crowd collects and obstructs the traffic so as to cause a nuisance, the person who is directly responsible for the crowd collecting is obviously not less but more guilty than the other persons who form the crowd and this would be equally the case whether he were inside or outside his shop at the precise moment when the police appeared. no one is allowed to make use of his premises in such away as to interfere with the rights of the public. there is no reason for interfering with the conviction in this case and i dismiss the application.

Full Judgment

Daniels, J.

1. The applicant Hapoo has been convicted along with a number of other persons of committing public nuisance under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction has been upheld by the lower Appellate Court. It appears, that there was a very large crowd of persons engaged in satta gambling in front of the shops of the accused and other persons and that this crowd was so great as to stop the traffic in the street for the space of half an hour. This was not the first time that such a crowd bad collected, On a previous occasion a similar crowd had collected for the same purpose and a man had been killed owing to a stampede taking place in the crowd on the approach of the Police. The Trial Court acquitted the owners of the satta shops except the accused but convicted him on the ground that he was outside among the crowd. The lower Appellate Court held that the accused in fact was outside but disagreed with the reasoning of the Trial Court. If a crowd collects and obstructs the traffic so as to cause a nuisance, the person who is directly responsible for the crowd collecting is obviously not less but more guilty than the other persons who form the crowd and this would be equally the case whether he were inside or outside his shop at the precise moment when the Police appeared. No one is allowed to make use of his premises in such away as to interfere with the rights of the public. There is no reason for interfering with the conviction in this case and I dismiss the application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial