Allahabad Court September 1915 Judgments
Prag Das Bhargava and anr. Vs. Daulat Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.1001
Henry Richards, C.J.1. Prag Das Bhargava and Kundan Lal have been charged with offences under Sections 420 and 265 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the complainant was cheated, that is to say, that he was induced to part with his money at Meerut on the false representation that, a certain barrel contained a certain amount of spirits. When the barrel reached Agra, it is alleged that it was discovered that the barrel did not contain the amount of spirit that it had been represented to contain. The charge under Section 265 is that the accused used a wrong measure. Undoubtedly if a wrong measure was used it was used in Meerut. The applicants complain that the Magistrate in Agra had no jurisdiction to enquire into the case. Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. In my opinion, the alleged offences, if committed, were committed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalka Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All462; 31Ind.Cas.829
Henry Richards, C.J.1. Kalka Prasad was charged with offences under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 409 and to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 477A together with a fine of Rs. 4,000, the sentences to run concurrently. Kalka Prasad has appealed and it has been argued on his behalf that there was a misjoinder of charges, contravening the provisions of Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,, which provides that (save as therein mentioned) there shall be a separate charge for every offence and that every such charge should be tried separately. The charge in the Court below against the, accused was that he being the tahvildar embezzled a sum of Rs. 3,991-7-11 and further that he omitted to enter arzrisals Nos. 1-120 with intent to defraud, and wrote on three of such arzrisals false numbers with like intent. The allegation is that it was his duty when receiving money, to take a form ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ram Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All40; 31Ind.Cas.828
Henry Richards, C.J.1. It appears that a decree was obtained against certain tenants. The karinda of the landlord purported to distrain the crops which had been attached in execution of the decree. The cultivators then cut and carried away the crops. They were charged under Section 379 with having committed theft and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment each. The learned Sessions Judge, on the matter coming up before him in revision, thought that the fact that the landlord had distrained the crops made this subsequent cutting and taking away of the crops by the accused lawful. He considered that this would be so notwithstanding that the distraint might have been more or less collusive between the landlord and his tenants. He therefore thought that the accused were wrongly convicted. The learned Magistrate has explained that in his opinion distraint having been made by an agent who was not authorized in writing was illegal, and that therefore the illegal distraint could not ju...
Tag this Judgment!Miharban Sigh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All464; 31Ind.Cas.821
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Magistrate of Etah, dismissing an appeal of Miharban Singh against an order of a Magistrate of the first class, directing him to give security to be of good behaviour under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Applicant is a zemindar and money-lender. It appears that a band of very desperate dacoits bad as their rendezvous, a place on the banks of the Kali Nadi on the boundaries of Etah and Mainpuri. The gist of the evidence of the Police and unofficial witnesses against the applicant, was that he harboured this band of dacoits. It would rather see as if it was intended at one time actually to charge the applicant as being a member of the gang; presumably because the necessary evidence was not forthcoming, no substantive proceedings were taken against him. Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines the class of persons against whom an order for security may be made:(a) A man ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›