Mukund Ram Vs. Emperor

Mukund Ram vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 26, 1922

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/485245

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/485245
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Gokul Prasad, J.
Decided On: Apr 26, 1922
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 273, offence under - Noxious food--Knowledge--Presumption. - - just like other ingredients of the offence, this also has to be proved, see the case of Emperor v.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukund Ram

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred: Emperor v. Sheo Lal
Reported In: AIR1922All273; 77Ind.Cas.1001

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 273, offence under - noxious food--knowledge--presumption. - - just like other ingredients of the offence, this also has to be proved, see the case of emperor v.gokul prasad, j.1. in this case the deputy-magistrate has 'not appreciated the effect of the words 'knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink' in section 273 of the indian penal code there is nothing on this record to show that mukund ram knew that the baisan was of such a nature as would be unfit for consumption. the learned deputy magistrate seems to think that-such knowledge is always to be presumed. there is no warrant in law for such a presumption; just like other ingredients of the offence, this also has to be proved, see the case of emperor v. sheo lal 26 a. 387 : 1 a.l.j. 64 : a.w.n> 1 cr.l.j. 210. the conviction was, therefore, illegal,2. i accept the reference, set aside 1he conviction and the sentence and direct that the fine, if realised, be refunded.

Full Judgment

Gokul Prasad, J.

1. In this case the Deputy-Magistrate has 'not appreciated the effect of the words 'knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink' in Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code There is nothing on this record to show that Mukund Ram knew that the baisan was of such a nature as would be unfit for consumption. The learned Deputy Magistrate seems to think that-such knowledge is always to be presumed. There is no warrant in law for such a presumption; just like other ingredients of the offence, this also has to be proved, see the case of Emperor v. Sheo Lal 26 A. 387 : 1 A.L.J. 64 : A.W.N> 1 Cr.L.J. 210. The conviction was, therefore, illegal,

2. I accept the reference, set aside 1he conviction and the sentence and direct that the fine, if realised, be refunded.

Same Parties Mukund Ram vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Gokul Prasad, J.

Criminal