Allahabad Court December 1919 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.
Syed Ikhlaq Ali Vs. Lala Budh Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: AIR1920All352; 54Ind.Cas.435
Tudball, J.1. Second Appeal No. 1549 of 1917 and Revision No. 1549 of 1918, which arise oat of the same matter, are heard and determined by me together. The facts must be briefly stated. The respondent Budh Sen brought a suit for contribution against the opposite party in the Court of Small Causes, that of the Munsif of East Budaun. He sought to recover contribution in that he had paid the whole costs of a former suit which bad been decreed against both him and the present appellant Ikhlaq Ali. That suit was transferred to the Court of the Honorary Munsif under Section 8, Sub-Section 2, of the Honorary Munsifs Act, II of 1896. The Honorary Munsif dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred and transferred apparently to the Subordinate Judge for decision. The Subordinate Judge on appeal decreed the suit on the 16th February 1916. In execution of that decree a house was sold and purchased by some third party on the 11th of January 1917. When the sale came up for confirmation, the judgmen...
Emperor Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All204
George Knox, J.1. Sita Ram has filed an application for revision of an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, dated the 22nd of September, 1919, whereby he has sentenced the said Sita Ram to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on each of three separate counts. The sentences are to run consecutively. They are passed under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. There is also a sentence of solitary confinement and fine.2. The grounds taken on which I am asked to revise are:(1) Because the evidence does not warrant the conviction of the applicant and the propriety of the finding, sentence and order.(2) Because no offence against the accused has in a proper view of the case been made out; and(3) That the sentences are unduly severe.3. The applicant at the time the offences were committed was Sub-Post-Master of Bridgemanganj Sub-Post-Office. In the course of his official work he had to issue certain cash certificates. The certificates were issued at Rs. 7-12. He was asked to en...
In Re: Sundar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All91; (1920)ILR42All233; 55Ind.Cas.110
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Pramada Charan Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. In this case Mr. Sundar Lal has applied to the Court to set aside an order of forfeiture passed by the Local Government on the 27th of May, 1919.2. The applicant was the keeper of a printing press in Allah-abaci at which the newspaper ' Bhavishya ' was printed. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Indian Press Act (I of 1910) he deposited on the 13th of February, 1919 the sum of Rs. 1,500, as security. On the 1lth and 25th of April two articles appeared which attracted the attention of the Local Government), and they, in exercise of the power conferred on them by Section 4, Clause (1), of the said Act, declared the security to be forfeited to His Majesty. Thereupon Mr. Sundar Lal filed a petition in this Court under Section 17 asking that the order of forfeiture might be set aside.3. The argument for the applicant fell under throe heads. At the outset he contended that the phrase '' Government established ...
Sital Pande Vs. Emperor Through Nihal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All29; 58Ind.Cas.681
George Knox, J.1. This is an application for transfer of what is called a Criminal Case No. 177-11 of 1919 from the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class of Basti to that to any other Magistrate in the District. The application is supported by an affidavit. It is alleged in the so-sailed affidavit that the Magistrate, without hearing any of the applicant's witnesses and without any case being instituted under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has called upon the applicant to show cause why he should not be required to file a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000 with two sureties in the sum of its 500 each, but the other side have been required by the said Court to show cause why they should not be required to ale a personal bond for Rs. 500 each with two sureties in the gum of Rs. 250 each for one year. The applicant proceeds to say that this Magistrate hap, on various occasions, shown by his attitude that he is displeased with the applicant and many times when he has gon...
Sita Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All95; 55Ind.Cas.476
George Knox, J.1. Sita Ram has filed an application for revision of an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, dated 22nd September 1919, whereby he has sentenced the said Sita Ram to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment on each of three separate counts. The sentences are to run consecutively. They are passed under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. There is also a sentence of solitary confinement and fine.2. The grounds taken on which I am asked to revise are:(1) Because the evidence does not warrant the conviction of the applicant and the propriety of the finding, sentence and order;(2) because no offence against the accused has in a proper view of the case been made out; and(3) that the sentences are unduly severe. The applicant at the time the offences were committed was Sub-Post Master of Bridgemanganj, Sub-Post Office. In the course of his official work be had to issue certain cash certificates.3. The certificates were issued at Rs. 7-12-0. He was asked to encash...
Mian Noor Alias Bijji Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.893
Tudball, J.1. The applicant was convicted for aiding and abetting an offence under Section 355, Indian Penal Code, and he was originally sentenced to one year's rigorous imprionment, which on appeal was reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. One Jakka Khan laid in wait for Hafiz Abdul Jalil, a Municipal Commissioner at Pilibhit, after the meeting of the Municipal Board at the Town Hall in that town. He threw a shoe into the carriage. He was prosecuted for an offence under Section 355 of the Code and was sentenced. Throughout the course of that trial no mention whatsoever was made of Bijji Khan, the present applicant, or of his complicity in the matter. Subsequently while Jakka Khan was serving his sentence, he was placed before a Magistrate by a Police Officer and made a certain statement implicating the present applicant. Proceedings were, therefore, taken against the latter. Jakka Khan was examined as a witness and totally denied Bijji Khan's implication in the matter. His sta...
Emperor Vs. Julua and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All202; 55Ind.Cas.465
Piggott, J.1. The order of the learned Sessions Judge has been carelessly drafted. The references to sections, 21 and 30 of the Cattle Trespass Act (Act No. I of 1871) are incorrect and have caused me some trouble. The actual complaint before the Magistrate was one of causing hurt coupled with the forcible rescue of cattle, punishable under Section 24 of Act No. I of 1871, So far as the particular matter under reference is concerned I have come to the conclusion that the Magistrate, although his procedure may not have been perfectly regular, was substantially right and that the interference of this Court is not called for The learned Sessions Judge is of course right in pointing out that an offence under Section 24 of Act No. I of 1871 is not compound-able under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A case under that section would, however, be a summons case and would result in an order of acquittal if no evidence were produced on which the court could find the accused guilty....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›