Allahabad Court December 1916 Judgments
Amir Hasan Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1916
Reported in: AIR1918All266; 38Ind.Cas.736
Tudball, J.1. Mr. Amir Hasan Khan, Government Pleader of Fatehpur, has been convicted of an offence under Section 185 of Act II of 1916 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, and has been fined Rs. 25. This Act carne into force with effect from the 1st of July 1916. The offeree was committed prior to that date when the former Act was in force. While the former Act was in force, Mr. Amir Hasan Khan applied for sanction to build a certain enclosure wall on his chabutra and to cover a certain drain with stone slabs. Sanction was given in the language set forth in the Magistrate's judgment. It did not sanction in clear terms the covering of the drain, but the Magistrate has very clearly given as wide a meaning as possible to it in favour of the accused, and has held that it could be said to cover his application in so far as the drain was concerned. The drain is a fairly deep one and fairly broad. The accused, instead of covering the drain with stone slabs, which could easily have been moved for ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. HusaIn Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All293
George Knox, J.1. Husain Khan [and Musammat Waziran were convicted by a first class magistrate of Allahabad of offences under Section 82 of the Registration Act. They appealed to the court of Session at Mirzapur. That court held that no appeal lay from the sentence passed against Musatnmat Waziran, namely, a sentence of Rs. 50 fine or in default one month's simple imprisonment; that the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 passed upon Husain Khan was justified by the facts and evidence in the case and was not too severe. It accordingly dismissed the appeal. Both Husain Khan and Musammat Waziran have come here in revision. They attack the convictions on the ground that the prosecution story and the evidence are not reliable and that the sentence of imprisonment, so far as Husain Khan is concerned, is too severe [having regard to his age. Husain Khan's age as entered in [the record is sixty-eight years. So far as the facts are concerned I agree with the lowe...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All317(2); 39Ind.Cas.474
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case are apparent from the order of reference passed by the Sessions Judge and the order of the District Magistrate passed on appeal. It is quite clear that on the 14th of August 1916, when the case came up for delivery of judgment, only two Magistrates were present, they being the two who had heard the case throughout and were competent to judge. They were unable to agree. Under Rule 7 of the Rules for the guidance of Benches laid down by Government Order No. 184(a), dated the 19th of August 1875, which rules have been adopted at Aligarh, in the case of the Bench in question, the accused was entitled to be acquitted by the two Magistrates who were present on the 14th of August 1916. The Magistrates, instead of so acquitting, referred the case to a Perganna Officer, who returned it to them with orders to do their duty. They then called in the third Magistrate who constituted the Bench, but who had been present only at one hearing out of the numerous hear...
Tag this Judgment!HusaIn Khan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All410; 39Ind.Cas.690
1. Husain Khan and Musammat Waziran were convicted by a First Class Magistrate of Allahabad of offences under Section 82 of the Registration Act. They appealed to the Court of Session at Mirzapur. That Court held that no appeal lay from the sentence passed against Musammat Waziran, namely, a sentence of Rs. 50 fine or in default one month's simple imprisonment; that the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 passed upon Husain Khan was justified by the facts and evidence in the case and was not too severe. It accordingly dismissed the appeal. Both Husain Khan and Musammat Waziran have come here in revision. They attack the convictions on the ground that the prosecution story and the evidence are not reliable and that the sentence of imprisonment, so far as Husain Khan is concerned, is too severe having regard to his age. Husain Khan's age as entered in the record is sixty-eight years. So far as the facts are concerned, I agree with the lower Appellate Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Singh and anr. Vs. Surjan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All235; 38Ind.Cas.564
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of two mortgages one dated the 4th of March 1895, and the other, an unregistered mortgage, dated the 5th of March of the same year. The mortgagors in the first mortgage were Durjan Singh, Bijai Singh, Raghunath Singh, Harnarain Singh and Tikam Singh. These persons were the five sons of Bhup Singh. The second mortgage was executed by Musammat Khuahal Kunwar, the widow of Bhup Singh and the mother of the mortgagors in the first mortgage. The first mortgage was made to secure the sum of Rs. 1,000. The second mortgage was to secure the sum of Rs. 99. The consideration for the first mortgage (according to the document) was the amount of a decree against Durjan Singh, Bijai Singh, Raghunath Singh and Harnarain Singh, together with an advance of Rs. 76 odd. According to the evidence' this decree had been obtained on foot of a promissory note made by the first four mortgagors in 1892. The consideration for the second mortgage was Rs. 99 an advance to...
Tag this Judgment!Har Chandi Lal and ors. Vs. Sheoraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All178
Parker, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 25th of February, 1913, of the High Court (Allahabad), reversing a decree, dated the 8th of July, 1911, of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly. The question is whether the appellants are entitled to enforce a mortgage against the respondents.2. The mortgage in question is dated the 13th of November, 1876, and was executed by Jai Chand in favour of Lala Chatri Lal, the mortgaged property being a five-sixths share in the mauza Nagaria Bikrampur. The amount secured was 5,500 rupees. The mortgagor died leaving a widow, Musammat Nandan, and a separated nephew, Phul Singh. Under the Hindu law Musammat Nandan had a widow's interest and Phul Singh had a reversion contingent on his surviving her in the property subject to the mortgage. Musammat Nandan could dispose of the property with the concurrence of Phul Singh, but Phul Singh could not, without the concurrence of Musammat Nandan, dispose of the reversion so as to defeat the interests of...
Tag this Judgment!Ejaz Ahmad and anr. Vs. Khatun Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All288
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. These are two connected appeals from orders passed by the District Judge of Budaun in connection with certain proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. By the first of these orders one Ejaz Ahmad was appointed the guardian of the property of three minors, two boys and a girl, children of his own brother, Huzur Ahmad. In so far as the petition of appeal before us is not connected with the other order presently to be considered, it amounts in effect to nothing more than this, that Ejaz Ahmad was not a suitable person to hold the guardianship of the property of these minors. If the record be examined from this point of view, it seems fairly clear from the evidence that no more suitable person for the guardianship of the property of the minors could have been found than Ejaz Ahmad. The appeal is complicated by being connected with the other appeal now before us, which is against a further order passed by the District Judge under the following circumstances. In...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Khatun Begam Vs. Ejaz Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All365(2); 37Ind.Cas.885
Piggott, J.1. These are two connected appeals from orders passed by the District Judge of Budaun in connection with certain proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. By the first of these orders one Ejaz Ahmad was appointed the guardian of the property of three minors, two boys and a girl, children of his own brother, Huzur Ahmad. In so far as the petition of appeal before us is not connected with the other order presently to be considered, it amounts in effect to nothing more than this, that Ejaz Ahmad was not a suitable person to hold the guardianship of the property of these minors. If the record be examined from this point of view, it seems fairly clear from the evidence that no more suitable person for the guardianship of the property of the minors could have been found than Ejaz Ahmad. The appeal is complicated by being connected with the other appeal now before us, which is against a further order passed by the District Judge, under the following circumstances. In Ejaz Ahma...
Tag this Judgment!Tapeshri Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All81; 38Ind.Cas.429
Piggott J. 1. In this case Tapeshri Prasad, head constable of Police employed at Police Station Bilhaur, was tried by a Magistrate of the first class at Cownpore on charges framed under Sections 202 and 161, Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty and concurrent sentences of imprisonment were passed. His appeal having been dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore, Tapeshri Prasad applied to this Court for revision. The learned Judge of this Court before whom his application was made found on examination of the judgment of the Sessions Court that, if the prosecution story was true, the offence committed was rather on of extortion under Section 384, Indian Penal Code, than one of receiving an illegal gratification under Section 161 of the same Code. From this point of view the sentence passed appeared inadequate, in the event of the facts alleged against the head constable being established. Notice was accordingly issued to Tapeshri Prasad to show cause why the sentence passed upon him...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Yakub Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All251; (1917)ILR39All273
Piggott, J.1. In this case four persons, Sheo Sahai, Yakub Ali, Wazir Ahmad and Thomas Fanthome, were tried before a magistrate of the first class at Jaunpur on a charge framed under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The magistrate, after a prolonged trial, found all the four accused guilty, convicted them and sentenced them to substantial terms of imprisonment and also to 'fine. All the four accused appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur, and the Additional Sessions Judge, in a judgement, dated the 6th of March, 1916, that is to say, some eight months after the hearing in the magistrate's court had commenced, has reversed the conviction and acquitted all the four accused. The appeal before us is one by the Local Government against the acquittal of Yakub Ali, Wazir Ahmad and Sheo Sahai. The learned Government Advocate, in opening the case in support of the appeal, called our attention to the fact that there was no appeal against the acquittal of Thomas Fanthome; but urged t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »