Allahabad Court August 1916 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Balgobind and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All102; 36Ind.Cas.157
Walsh, J.1. This case seems to me to raise about sixteen points of law of various kinds, but I do not propose to discuss them all at length. Out of respect to the Sessions Judge and to the Magistrate, I will just say-shortly a word or two upon the points referred to me. I think the Sessions Judge is right, namely, that unless the receiving is joint, persons cannot be tried jointly under Section 239 for receiving, merely because the goods were stolen in one theft. The acts of receiving in such a case by different persons on different occasions at different places are not only different offences but different transactions in themselves, and it is really not right to try A and B for receiving one set of goods at the same time as C and D for receiving wholly independently another set of goods. There is a danger of prejudice, even if it cannot be shown that the accused were actually prejudiced, and I do not think that the Magistrate's explanation really meets the point, because assuming tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Parshad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.687
1. This is a very unfortunate busine Sections People who live in India and make their livelihood out of India, must take things as they find them, provided of course they are not annoyed and inconvenienced by breaches of the law. It seems to me that in this case Mr. Russell was a great deal too hasty. Everybody from time to time has to put up with inconveniences from noise when other people are amusing themselves. On this occasion there appears to have been a recognised festival with recognised celebrations at night, and I am satisfied that these accused persons were engaged in a perfectly lawful occupation which unfortunately happened to disturb and annoy Mr. Russell. If they were committing a breach of the law, his proper course was to ascertain some of their names and lodge a complaint before the proper Court, but apparently there was nothing of that kind open to him and he, therefore, took the law into his own hands. To cut a long story short, he bungled the busine Sections He seem...
Tag this Judgment!Hashmat Ali Vs. Emperor Through Ambar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.139
Walsh, J.1. I do not think that there is sufficient ground for ordering a re-prosecution in this case. Where a competent Court has dismissed a case after considering the evidence, and giving thorough and careful reasons, I do not think, unless there is clear evidence of a miscarriage of justice, that an accused party, who has stood his trial, ought to be ordered to run the risk again. The general principle of the criminal law is that a man is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and if he has been properly tried and acquitted by a competent Court, the least that you can say is that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt and I think the usual practice is not to encourage the prosecution to have a second shot, unless there is some very strong reason in the public interest. Now if the Collector's view was a correct interpretation of the Magistrate's view, namely, that the complaint was a trivial affair and not worth inquiring into, I should be inclined' to agree with the Collector. ...
Tag this Judgment!Qasim Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All126; 35Ind.Cas.967
Walsh, J.1. It is to be regretted that I have no alternative but to quash this conviction, on the purely technical ground that neither in the charge nor in the conviction has the Court laid down the crime for which the accused has been punished. The section provides punishment for any person who, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, in this particular case that must mean without a license, either recruits or engages or induces such person to emigrate or further assists any person to emigrate. Now the definition of emigration is 'the departure of a native of India from any part of India to which this Act applies, for the purpose of labouring for hire in a labouring district otherwise than as a domestic servant.' So that the section requires, before punishment can be inflicted under it, proof that the accused person without a license recruited, engaged, induced or assisted a labourer to depart from any part of the territory for the purpose of labouring for hire. Now there are ...
Tag this Judgment!Meghraj and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All108; 37Ind.Cas.483
Walsh, J.1. This conviction cannot be sustained. It is perhaps better, rather than to attempt to speculate as to the true interpretation of these proceedings, to see whether the charge, as stated, is made out by the evidence. Now the charge, as originally framed, was in these terms: that you, that is, the present appellants, on the 18th of February 1906, cheated Lal Singh and induced him to execute two documents in favour of Niranjan Lal and Ishwari Prasad. So stated there is no offence in law at all. There are considerable gaps in the statement. It is not a crime to induce a person to execute a document. It has to be shown that the inducement was made by some false or fraudulent representation, if the charge is that you induced him to do it for the purpose of cheating. Nor is it alleged in the charge in what way, when the documents were executed, he would be a loser and the accused would be the gainers. In complicated matters of this kind nothing is more important than that the Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Munna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All441; (1917)ILR39All139; 35Ind.Cas.822
Walsh, J.1. This case is a revision on the application of, the Government Advocate. I think the learned Sessions Judge has come to an erroneous conclusion, founding himself upon a decision of this Court under Section 107 which does not apply and upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported as Ketaboi v. Queen-Empress 27 C. 993. The latter decision, which is certainly in point, has been dissented from by the Bombay High Court and also by the Madras High Court in a decision reported as In re Kora Rangan 17 Ind. Cas. 413 : 36 M. 96 : 23 M.L.J. 535 : 13 Cr. L.J. 781, which I adopt. Incases of this kind arguments ab inconvenienti can always be produced on either side. On the one hand, it may be said that a man accused of an evil reputation outside his residence might be subjected to a great inconvenience in having to summon witnesses from a distance. It may be that that is one of the risks that travellers run in this country, but if they are persons of good character it does not stri...
Tag this Judgment!Gayani Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All48; 36Ind.Cas.141
Walsh, J.1. I need hardly say that in questions arising under Section 110 and, what is really a cognate section, Section 107, the moment it is shown, speaking for myself, prima facie that there is something which the Courts below have done either in excess of their powers, or by a too summary exercise of their powers, or by misapplying the rules of evidence or by not giving due effect to the evidence for the defence, I should have no hesitation in admitting an application for revision; but, on the other hand, it has to be borne in mind that the somewhat difficult administration of this section depends fundamentally on two things: the view which the Court below takes of the witnesses who speak to these facts; and I agree with what was said by Mr. Justice Alston in the case See Shiam Lal v. Emperor 2 Ind. Cas. 225--Ed., referred to that this Court will not interfere on the merits except in very exceptional cases, because it is idle to suggest that I or any other Judge of the High Court s...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Das Vs. Goswami Sri Raman Lalji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All474
Walsh, JJ.1. In this case the facts appear in the Judgment of my brother Mr. Justice Sundar Lal. There is only one point of law involved in the appeal. But it is an important question of principle, the determination of which must necessarily involve the rights and interests of a considerable number of persons. I am deciding this case upon the hypothesis, which I adopt as correct, that this is a case of debt, and that if the authority of Allah Dad Khan v. Sant Ram (1912) I.L.R. 35 All. 79, relied upon by Mr. Peary Lal Banerji was rightly decided, Mr. Banerji is entitled to succeed. On the other hand if it was not rightly decided this appeal must fail., On a consideration of that case, a subsequent authority to which I will refer in one moment, and the language of the section itself, I entertain no doubt whatever that the decision relied upon by Mr. Banerji cannot be regarded as sound law. The contention is that an assignee of a debt due to the estate of a deceased person cannot recover ...
Tag this Judgment!Hamira Bibi, Vs. Zubaida Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All581
Parker, J.1. A short statement of the facts which have given rise to this litigation will explain the point for determination involved in these consolidated appeals.2. One Shaikh Inayat-ullah, a Muhammadan inhabitant of the district of Gorakhpur, in the United Provinces of India, died in March, 1892, leaving him surviving a widow and a daughter, named respectively Zubaida Bibi and Najm-un-nissa; a sister, Hamira Bibi; and two brothers, Khadim Husain and Ihsan-ullah, all of whom became entitled under the Sunni law, to which Inayat-ullah was subject, to certain specific shares in his estate. Besides the widow's share of one-eighth, Zubaida was entitled to her unpaid dower. This has been found in a previous proceeding to have amounted to the large sum of one lakh of rupees. The other heirs of Inayat-ullah not being in a position to pay this sum without apparently alienating at least a considerable part of the estate, allowed the widow to take or remain in possession of the whole to satisf...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Prasad and anr. Vs. Karan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All40; 37Ind.Cas.752
Piggott, J.1. This is an application of an unusual character. The position of the parties is as follows:2. The applicants are judgment-debtors and the opposite party are decree-holders.3. Under a certain decree for sale on a mortgage, it is common ground that the decree directed the sale of some share in a particular mahal. It so happened that the decree was ambiguous. A difficulty arose on the execution side as to whether it was a 1/4th share of this mahal or a 1/8th share which was to be sold. The question must be determined primarily on the wording of the decree, though the surrounding circumstances may have to be taken into consideration.4. The Court below has ordered a 1/4th share of the mahal to be sold, and the sale has already taken place, but an appeal against that order has been admitted, and is pending before this court, raising the question whether it was 1/4th share and not 1/8th share which should have been sold. Now the judgment-debtor has presented this application pray...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›