Allahabad Court September 1916 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Emperor Vs. Abdul Aziz
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All141
Walsh, J.1. This case has been referred to the High Court under a misapprehension. A boy named Abdul Aziz was employed in an electrical workshop. He took a bicycle away belonging to one of the engineers, as he says, at the instance of another person who apparently laid some claim to it, and he, the accused, actually changed some of the parts. It was a, wicked theft, but it was a very clumsy one. It was done in broad daylight and the bicycle remained upon the premises, although changes were made in it. Every single witness culled for the prosecution gave the boy a good character. The boy himself protested that he had been used as a tool and that he was not aware that he was engaged in a theft. In fact, he objected to doing something to the bicycle on the ground that he might be implicated, and he said he was satisfied by the answers he got. It would not be fair to form any opinion as to whether this other person in the works was really the guilty party. I therefore assume that this yout...
Abdul Aziz Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.492
Walsh, J.1. This case has been referred to the High Court under a misapprehension. A boy named Abdul Aziz was employed apparently in an electrical workshop. He took a bicycle away belonging to one of the engineers, as, he says, at the instance of another person who apparently laid some claim to it, and he, the accused, actually'. changed some of the parts. It was a wicked theft, which was a very clumsy one. It was done in broad daylight and the bicycle remained upon the premises although changes were made in it. Every single witness called for the prosecution gave the boy a good character. The boy himself protested that he had been used as a tool and that he was not aware that he was engaged in a theft. In fact he objected to doing something to the bicycle on the ground that he might be implicated, and he said he was satisfied by the answers he got. It would not be fair to form any opinion as to whether this other person in the works was really the guilty party. I, therefore, assume th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›