Allahabad Court August 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.
Emperor Vs. Dhani and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All386; 52Ind.Cas.881
1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has tried this case carefully and has taken into consideration every point that can be taken in favour of the accused persons. We wish to point out to him that he is in error in referring to the principle of law that an accused person should not be convicted merely upon a retracted confession unless there is corroboration of the confession by other evidence.' There is no such principle of law. The proper rule is laid down in the case which he quotes, namely, Emperor v. Kehri 29 A. 434 : 4 A.L.J. 310 : A.W.N. (1907) 140 5 Cr. L.J. 360. It is for the Court to decide whether it believes a confession or not. That is all. The law does not require any corroboration. Naturally a Court is more likely to believe a con-fession if it is corroborated, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge should disabuse his mind of the erroneous impression that the law requires any corroboration. It does not. However, the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge...
Gaj Kumar Chandar Vs. Salamat Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All83
Stuart and Wallach, JJ.1. The decision of this revision has been referred to a Bench of two Judges in view of the difference of opinion between the Judges who decided Parbhu Narain Singh, Kashi Naresh v. Harbans Lal (1916) 14 A.L.J. 281 (291). The point is this. Does a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lie against the order of a District Judge in an appeal against the decision of a Assistant Collector in a matter under the provisions of Section 167, Local Act II of 1901? We have heard the arguments. The arguments to the effect that no such revision lies can briefly be stated as follows: Under the provisions of Section 167, Local Act II of 1901, 'all suits and applications of the nature specified in the fourth Schedule shall be heard and determined by the Revenue Courts; and except in the way of appeal, as hereinafter provided, no courts other than Courts of Revenue shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which any such suit or application mi...
In Re: a Mukhtar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All86
Muhammad Rafiq, Stuart, and Wallace, JJ.1. A notice has been issued to the Mukhtar, by a Full Bench of this Court, on a report of the District Judge of Gorakhpur, dated the 17th of April, 1919, to show cause why the report made against him should not be accepted, and why proper orders should not be passed against him under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The substance of the complaint is contained in the District Judge's report and the accompanying papers. It is that the mukhtar in question, who practised in the Criminal and Revenue Courts in the Kasia sub-division of Gorakhpur, had been grossly insulting to a Sub-divisional Officer in that court. The language objected to was contained in three letters, dated the 22nd of July, 3lst of July and the 5th of August, 1918:2. We have heard the learned vakil who represented the Mukhtar in question. He argued upon the wording of Sections 13 and 14 of Act XVIII of 1879 but in the main, confined his plea to a frank admission that the ...
Mr. C. Wilson Vs. Jagmandir Das Baldeo Singh and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All185(1); 52Ind.Cas.653
1. The arbitration award provided that the applicant Wilson should pay the costs. The costs included the arbitrators' fees. A decree was prepared under the terms of the award. After the decree was passed according to the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge, it was discovered that the fees of the arbitrators had not been fixed. The learned Judge fixed the fees. We see no reason not to accept the conclusions that the fees had not been fixed, and that he bad a right to fix the fees. We do not consider he fixed the fees too high. Thus the case stands that, if he had fixed the fees before the decree his action would have been correct and could not have been challenged; is the case altered in any way because he fixed the fees after the decree had been passed? We cannot see that there was anything to prevent him from doing this, and there is nothing upon which we can interfere in revision. We, therefore, dismiss this application with costs, including fees on the higher scale....
Gaj Kumar Chander Vs. Syed Salamat Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.756
1. The decision of this revision has been referred to a Bench of two Judges in view of the difference of opinion between the Judges who decided Parbhu Narain Singh v. Harbans Lal 36 Ind. Cas. 279 : 14 A.L.J. 261. The point is this. Does a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, lie against the order of a District Judge in an appeal against the decision of an Assistant Collector in a matter under the provisions of Section 167, Local Act II of 1901? We have heard the arguments. The arguments to the effect that no such revision lies can briefly be stated as follows: Under the provisions of Section 167, Local Act II of 1901, all suits and applications of the nature specified in the 4th Schedule shall be heard and determined by the Revenue Courts and, except in the way of appeal, as hereinafter provided, no Courts other than Courts of Revenue shall take, cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which any such suit or application might be brought or made. The authority of ...
In Re: Pandit Amrita Lal, Mukhtar of Gorakhpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All38; 52Ind.Cas.798
1. A notice has been issued to Pandit Amrita Lal, Mukhtar, by a Full Bench of this Court on a report of the District Judge of Gorakhpur, dated the 17th of April 1919, to show cause why the report made against him should not be accepted and why proper orders should not be passed against him under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The substance of the complaint is contained in the District Judge's report and the accompanying papers. It is that the Mukhtar in question, who practises in the Criminal and Revenue Courts in the Kasia Sub Division of Gorakhpur, had been grossly insulting to a Sub-Divisional Officer in that Court. The language objected to was contained in three letters, dated the 22nd of July, 31st of July and the 5th of August 1918.2. We have heard the learned Counsel who represented the Mukhtar in question. He argued upon the wording of Sections 13 and 14 of Act XVIII of 1879 but, in the main, confined his plea to a frank admission that the language used in these let...
Sheo Sahai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All376(1); 53Ind.Cas.158
Wallach, J.1. This is an application by one Sbeo Sahai for revision of an order of a Magistrate of the first class binding him over under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order was upheld in appeal by the District Magistrate of Fatehpur. The learned Advocate for the petitioner complains that his client has been tried jointly with one Attal Singh; that legally no case has been made out under Section 117, Clause 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure justifying such joint trial; as it has not been shown that Attal Singh and the petitioner have been associated together in the matter under enquiry. It is further argued that even if on a strictly technical interpretation of the Section the joint trial was legal, nevertheless the applicant has been greatly prejudiced in consequence of the evidence of five witnesses who gave evidence against Attal Singh alone. It is quite true, as Mr. Satya Chandra Mukerji remarks that in oases of joint enquiry there is danger of one accused b...
Desraj Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All174; 52Ind.Cas.672
Wallach, J.1. The applicant, Desraj, had been discharged by a Magistrate of the First Class in an enquiry under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The District Magistrate of Mainpuri ordered a further enquiry under Section 437. Against that order Desraj has applied in revision to this Court. In Khargav. Emperor 22 Ind. Cas. 183 : 12 A.L.J. 167 : 15 Cr. L.J. 39 : 36 A.147 a Divisional Bench of this Court has held that a District Magistrate has jurisdiction to direct further enquiry in a case where a person has been discharged in an enquiry under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am bound by that ruling and, therefore, have to hold that the District Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the order which is attacked in this revision. The only question that remains is whether he was justified, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, in ordering a further enquiry. I am not prepared to tie the Magistrate's hands, and to hold that be was not justified in passing the order...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›