Allahabad Court August 1917 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Ganga Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All24
Piggott, J.1. These are two applications which come before the Court under the following circumstances. There was a litigation going on in the Court of the Munsif of Bisauli, in which one of the parties was seeking to establish the proposition that a certain house had at one time belonged to one Ganga ram. As a piece of evidence bearing on this question, he undertook to prove to the court that Ganga Ram had granted a ten years' lease of this house in favour of one Tulshi Ram, since deceased. It was said that Tulshi Ram had executed on stamp paper an agreement to hold this house as tenant of Ganga Ram at a certain rent. Summons was issued to Ganga Ram calling upon him to produce this document. He appeared in court in obedience to the summons, tendered in evidence an agreement of the nature suggested, purporting to have been executed in his favour by Tulshi Ram, deceased, as long ago as the year 1895. He gave evidence on oath supporting the story of the lease in question and the genuinen...
Tag this Judgment!Khairati Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All403(1); 42Ind.Cas.1005
P. C. Banerji, J.1. The applicant Khairati sold four tins to the complainant Gaya Prasad, which he said contained German dye. One of the tins was opened and was found at the time of the sale to contain genuine dye. Subsequently to his purchase Gaya Prasad opened another tin and found that it contained alum. He bored holes in the other two tins and those tins also were found to contain alum. Khairati was prosecuted and was convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Khairati's defence was that he had purchased the tins at Amritsar in the condition in which he sold them and that he was not aware that three of the tins did not contain German dye. He adduced evidence to prove that he purchased four tins at Amritsar. Of course, the witness could not identify the particular tins but he did prove that four tins which were alleged to contain dye had been sold to Khairati. It is probable that Khairati himself was the victim of a fraud. The learned Sessions Judge says that it was for h...
Tag this Judgment!Manna and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.783
P. C. Banerjee, J.1. The applicants were ordered to furnish security for good behaviour. They produced two sureties, but the sureties have been rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that they live at a distance from the village of the applicants. The Magistrate does not appear to have made any judicial enquiry as to the fitness of the sureties. The mere fact that they live at a distance is not by itself sufficient to disqualify the sureties. Of course, as remarked in the case of Queen-Empress v. Rahim Bakhsh 20 A. 206: A. W. N. (1898) 21: 9 Ind. Dce. (N. S.) 494, it is reasonable 'to expect and require that the sureties to be tendered should not be sureties from such a distance as would make it unlikely that-they could exercise any control over the man for whom they were willing to stand surety.' In the present case the Magistrate does not express any opinion on the point noticed above and he has made no enquiry. I accordingly allow the application, set aside the order of th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Madho and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All28
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The two applicants, Madho and Ramanand, have been convicted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused simple hurt to a constable named Ram Partit and each of them has been sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. They have also been bound down to keep the peace for one year under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts as found are these. The two men, with a third man named Mataphal, were returning from the Cantonment Magistrate's court and when they were nearing the pontoon bridge the constable, Ram Partit, who was on duty, found that they were all armed with what the Magistrate calls formidable lathis. The constable inquired who they were and on being told that they were servants of a Pragwal he asked them to give up their lathis if they were not prepared to go to the thana. The men refused to surrender their lathis. The constable then told them that he would not allow them to proceed. Thereupon Madho attacked h...
Tag this Judgment!Madho and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All238(2); 42Ind.Cas.917
1. The two applicants, Madho and Ramanand, have been convicted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, for having caused simple hurt to a constable named Ram Partit and each of them has been sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. They have also been bound' down to keep the peace for one year under Section 1C6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The facts as found are these. The two men with a third man named Mataphal Were returning from the Cantonment Magis. trate's Court and when they were nearing the pontoon bridge the constable Ram Partit, who was on duty, found that they were all armed with what the Magistrate calls formidable lathis. The constable enquired who they were and on being told that they were servants of a pragwal, he asked them to give up their lathis if they were not prepared to go to the thana. The men refused to surrender their lathis. The constable then told them that he would not allow them to proceed. Thereupon Madho attacked, him with a lathi and stru...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingh Sahai Vs. Sheo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All389; 42Ind.Cas.855
1. The question that has been referred to this Full Bench for decision is---Whether this appeal, out of which the question arises, is barred by limitation or not?2. In order to decide this point it is necessary to consider first the date on which the judgment of the lower Appellate Court was passed and the days that it took the appellant to obtain copies of the judgment and decree complained of. The judgment was pronounced on the 3rd December 1915. We find from the record that an application for the copy both of the judgment and decree was made on the 7th December 1915, and that that copy could have been obtained on the 18th December 1915. The appellant, therefore, had at his disposal the ninety days prescribed for the appeal plus a period of twelve days, the time requisite to obtain copies of the judgment and decree complained of. The appeal was filed in this Court on the 15th March 1916, and was thus one day beyond the time allowed by the Indian Limitation Act. Prima facie, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All382; 42Ind.Cas.927
1. These are two applications which come before the Court under the following circumstances. There was a litigation going on in the Court of a Munsif of Bisauli, in which one of the parties was seeking to establish the proposition that a certain house had at one time be longed to one Ganga Ram. As a piece of evidence bearing on this question he undertook to prove to the Court that Ganga Ram had granted a ten years' lease of this house in favour of one Tulshi Ram since deceased. It was said that Tulshi Ram had executed on stamp paper an agreement to hold this house as tenant of Ganga Ram at a certain rent. Summons was issued to Ganga Ram calling upon him to produce this document. He appeared in Court in obedience to the summons, tendered in evidence an agreement of th0 nature suggested, purporting to have been executed in his favour by Tulshi Ram deceased as long ago as the year 1895. He gave evidence on oath supporting the contract of lease in question and the genuineness of the docume...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jagrup Shukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All21
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This application for revision was made under the following circumstances. A suit was filed in the court of the Munsif of Jaunpur which was dismissed on the 19th of November, 1914. An application was made to the Munsif of Jaunpur by the Government Pleader for sanction to prosecute the applicant under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, these being some of the sections mentioned in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application purported to be one under Section 195, paragraph (1), Clause (b), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was not an application under Section 476, as is erroneously stated in the order of the learned Munsif. The matter was taken up by the successor in office of the Munsif who had dismissed the suit. He took some additional evidence and came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient reason for sanctioning the prosecution of the present applicant, and he accordingly rejected the application. Thereupon a petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Qasim Ali Khan Vs. Musammat Bhagwanta Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All394; 42Ind.Cas.888
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows:--The respondent's predecessor-in-title obtained a decree for sale against the appellant and others in the year 1897. Execution of the decree was obtained on many occasions but the decree has not yet been satisfied. Another application for execution has now been made. The present appellant and one other objected that the execution of the decree was barred under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The Court below, relying on a ruling of this Court that the rule laid down in Section 48 did not govern the case of mortgage decrees passed prior to the coming into force of the present Code of Civil Procedure, disallowed the objection.3. In so doing the Subordinate Judge wrote a judgment which was delivered on September 23rd, 1916. He also drew up a formal order nr rather a decree, i.e., a formal expression of his decision of the question.4. The present appellant took no further step in the matter until December 9th, 1916, when he a...
Tag this Judgment!Jagrup Shukul Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All332; 42Ind.Cas.915
1. This application for revision was made under the following circumstances. A suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Jaunpur which was dismissed on the 19th of November 1914. An application was made to the Munsif of Jaunpur by the Government Pleader for sanction to prosecute the applicant under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, these being some of the sections mentioned in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application purported to be one under Section 195, paragraph 1, Clause (b), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was not an application under Section 476, as is erroneously stated in the order of the learned Munsif. The matter was taken up by the successor-in-office of the Munsif who had dismissed the suit. He took some additional evidence and came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient reason, for sanctioning the prosecution of the present applicant, and he accordingly rejected the application. Thereupon a petition was presented in the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »