Allahabad Court September 1917 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Ram Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All39
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. Ram Kishan was called upon under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to furnish security for good behaviour on the ground that he was a man of a dangerous of d desperate character. The officiating District Magistrate of Bareilly, who tried the case, made an order under Section 118 directing Ram Kishan to furnish security to be of good for two years. As the security was furnished he did not submit the case to the Sessions Judge under Section 123 of the Code. The first plea taken in the application for revision to this Court is that the learned Magistrate acted contrary to law in not complying with the provisions of Section 123, which is to the effect that is a person who has been ordered to furnish security dose not give such security, the Court may direct him to be detained in prison pending the orders of the Sessions judge. The learned Counsel for the applicant did not press the plea. In the case of Rai Isri Pershad v. Queen-Empress (1), It was o...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All215; 42Ind.Cas.914
P. C. Banerji, J.1. Ram Kishan was called upon under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to furnish security for good behaviour on the ground that he was a man of a dangerous and desperate character. The Officiating District Magistrate of Bareilly, who tried the case, made an order under Section 118 directing Ram Kishan to furnish security to be of good behaviour for two years. As the security was furnished, he did not submit the case to the Sessions Judge under Section 123 of the Code. The first plea taken in the application for revision to this Court is that the learned' Magistrate acted contrary to law in not complying with the provisions of Section 123, Sub-section (3), and not sending the record for the orders of the Sessions Judge. Having regard to the clear language of Section 123, which is to the effect that if a person who has been ordered to furnish security does not give such security the Court may direct him to be detained in prison pending the orders of the Sessi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Barkat Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All38
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The applicants Barkat Ali and Hamid Ali have been convicted under Section 25 of the Forests Act (No. VII of 1878). The former has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 and the latter to a fine of Rs. 40. It appears that these two persons along with two others went to a reserved forest. The other two persons who were tried along with the applicants Barkat Ali and Hamid Ali shot two deer. For this all the four persons were placed on their trial. It has been found that the four persons formed a party and went to the forest with the object of hunting. They had no permit and therefore they were punishable under the Section mentioned above for violating the rules framed under Clause (i) of the Section. It is true that the two applicants did not actually shoot any deer. As the Section makes shooting punishable, they could not be convicted of shooting in a reserved forest; but they were certainly hunting, and hunting without a permit is punishable under the Section. T...
Tag this Judgment!Barkat Ali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All338; 42Ind.Cas.922
P. C. Banerji, J.1. The applicants Barkat Ali and Hamid Ali have been convicted under Section 25 of the Forests Act (VII of 1878). The former has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 and the latter to a fine of Rs. 40. It appears that these two persons along with two others went into a reserved forest. The other two persons who were tried along with the applicants Barkat Ali and Hamid Ali shot two deer, For this all the four persons were placed on their trial, it has been found that the four persons formed a party and went to the forest with the object of hunting. They had no permit and, therefore, they were punished under the section mentioned above for violating the rules framed under Clause (i) of the section. It is true the two applicants did not actually shoot any deer. As the section makes shooting punishable they could not be convicted of shooting in a reserved forest, but they were certainly hunting and hunting without a permit is punishable under the section. Therefore, the two ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheobans Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All355(1); 42Ind.Cas.997
P. C. Banerji, J.1. The applicants along with several others were convicted by a Magistrate under Sections 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 147 and in the case, of the applicants confirmed the conviction under Section 325. The learned Judge in the coarse of his judgment says, 'there is no evidence worthy of credit on either side.' Further down he repeats that 'there is no reliable evidence that there was a riot.' He thus discards the whole of the evidence adduced on behalf of the, prosecution and yet he holds the applicants to ha guilty of having caused grievous hurt to Ajudhi. No, doubt Ajudhi received serious injuries and so did the applicants, but from the fact of there, being injuries on the person of Ajudhi it did sot follow that those injurious were indicted by the three applicants. As the learned Judge disbelieves the whole of the evidence for the prosecution and he does not say that he believes any...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Badri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All35
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The applicant Badri Prasad has been convicted of fabricating false evidence as defined in Section 192 of the Indian Penal Gode and has been sentenced under Section 193 of that Code to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Badri Prasad was a clerk employed by the Naraini Estate, which is in charge of the Court of Wards, and one of his duties was to register sales of cattle at the Naraini market. On, the 21st of March, 1917, two persons, Riyayat and Arman, were carrying away twenty-six head of cattle. While they Were passing Bisenda police station the sub-inspector stopped them and wanted them to produce the receipts which they had obtained as to the registration of the date of the sale of the cattle. They produced 19 receipts but they had none as regards the remaining seven head of cattle On the 27th of that month, they produced seven receipts bearing date the 21st of March, 1917. These receipts had in fact been prepared by the accused on the 27th, but they w...
Tag this Judgment!Qasim Ali Khan Vs. Bhagwanta Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All12
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. 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. In so doing the Subordinate Judge wrote a judgement, which was delivered on the 23rd of September, 1916. He also drew up a formal order, or rather a decree, i.e., a formal expression of his decision of the question. The present appellant took no further step in the matter until the 9th of December, 191...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Babu Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All415(2); (1918)ILR40All32; 42Ind.Cas.1000
Banerji, J.1. The facts of this case are set forth in the referring order of the learned Sessions Judge and it is unnecessary to repeat them. It is clear that the procedure adopted by the Munsif in committing the case to the Court of Session was irregular and illegal. I agree with the view of the learned Sessions Judge and quash the commitment. I direct that the record be sent to the District Magistrate with the request that he himself or by a competent subordinate Magistrate do hold an inquiry into the matter and commit the case to the Court of Session, if necessary. The case should be deemed to have been committed to the Criminal Court under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure....
Tag this Judgment!Bhikam Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Gobind Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All374(2); 42Ind.Cas.1006
1. The applicants have been convicted under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the conviction under Section 323 is concerned, it cannot upon the findings be questioned in this case and it must be maintained.: As regards the conviction under Section 448 I do not think that the applicants were guilty of criminal trespass. Phul Singh and Lai Singh obtained a decree against one Bhara from the Court of Small Causes. This decree they transferred to Bhikam Singh. Process was taken but for execution of the decree and some, cattle were to be attached as the property of Bhara. The applicants went with the Civil Court amin for the purpose of attaching the cattle. They were asked by the amin to bring out the cattle and they did so. The cattle were apparently in the house of the complainant Gobind Singh. It has not been found that the cattle did not belong to Bhara. On the contrary I am informed that a Civil Court has held that they did belong to Bhara and had been properly at...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All378; 42Ind.Cas.1006a
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad recommending that the conviction of one Ghasi under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of a fine imposed thereunder should be set aside. Ghasi was tried by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. He appealed to the District Magistrate, who dismissed the appeal. The matter was then taken in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, who has sent up the record with a recommendation for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed on Ghasi. In my opinion the facts as found by the learned District Magistrate in his judgment in appeal show that Ghasi was guilty of criminal trespass. The learned Sessions Judge says: In this case there is no evidence to show that the applicant Ghasi had entered upon the complainants' land with criminal intent or that he had entered at all. Mere building of houses on another person's land, in my opinion, does not amount to cri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »