Allahabad Court February 1920 Judgments
Jagan Nath Vs. Kunj Man and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All359
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. There are certain facts which are necessary to explain the decision in this suit. According to the plaintiff respondent's own story there was a certain house which was acquired by a joint family of which he was a member. It became joint family property. The defendants appellants before us, according to him, began to disturb the plaintiff and the joint family in possession of the property and began to do various improper acts in respect to it, He accordingly brought this suit for an injunction to restrain them. He also admitted that his brother Balmakund was the managing member of the joint family, that this brother Balmakund had brought a former suit in respect to this very house against the very same defendants on the very same cause of action, which suit had been dismissed . He admitted that prior to the institution of that suit his brother Balmakund consulted him as to its institution and he gave his consent thereto, Both the court of first instance...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahadeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All385
Pigoott, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Mahadeo who has been convicted of the offence which may be broadly described as that of keeping a common gaming house, punishable under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, Act No. Ill of 1867, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment) for two months. The case was tried summarily and no appeal. lay under the law. The matter was brought in revision before, the Sessions Judge, who has written a careful order dealing with the points raised before him and has found no cause for: interference Before me the following points have been urged:(1) That the search as conducted was irregular and invalid in law, and could not operate so as to give rise, against the persons accused, to the presumption referred to in Section 6 of Act III of 1867, by reason of the fact that the Magistrate's warrant, authorizing the search, had been endorsed by the police officer to whom (by virtue of his office) it was originally issued, to another police...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All150; 58Ind.Cas.241
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Mahadeo, who has been convicted of the offence which may be broadly described as that of keeping a common gaming house, punishable under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, Act No. Ill of 1867, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months. The case was tried summarily and no appeal lay under the law. The matter was brought in revision before the Sessions Judge, who has written careful order dealing with the points raised before him and has found no cause for interference. Before me the following points have been urged:(1) That the search as conducted was irregular and invalid in law. and could not operate so as to give rise ageist the persons accused to the presumption referred to in Section 6 of Act No. III of 1867, by reason of the fast that the Magistrate's warrant authorising the search had been endorsed by the Police Officer to whom (by virtue of his office) it was originally issued, to another Police Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Jhabboo and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All59; 55Ind.Cas.676
Piggott, J.1. The one and only question raised by this application is whether the applicant Jhabboo was or was not allowed the privilege, which in a warrant case is secured to every accused person by Section 257, Clause 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of obtaining the process of the Court for the attendance of a defence witness of the name of Saiyid Hamid Husain. As a matter of fact the Magistrate who tried the case issued process on two occasions for the attendance of this witness. He then refused to issue further process or to adjourn the hearing of the case. He has recorded an order which is apparently intended to express his opinion that the accused in repeating his application for the issue of process for the attendance of the said witness was doing so merely for the purpose of vexation or delay. The matter was represented to the learned Sessions Judge when the case came before him in appeal; he says that the Magistrate had given the accused every facility for securing the at...
Tag this Judgment!Chaube Kunjman and anr. Vs. Chaube Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All50; 55Ind.Cas.846
1. There are certain facts which are necessary to explain the decision in this suit. According to the plaintiff-respondent's own story there was a certain house which was acquired by a joint family of which he was a member. It became joint family property. The defendants-appellants before us, according to him, began to disturb the plaintiff and the joint family in possession of the property and began to do various improper acts in respect to it. He accordingly brought this suit for an injunction to restrain them. He also admitted that his brother Balmakund was the managing member of the joint family, that this brother Balmakund had brought a former suit in respect to this very house against the very same defendants on the very same cause of action, which suit had been dismissed. He admitted that prior to the institution of that suit his brother Balmakund consulted him as to its institution and he gave his consent thereto. Both the Court of first instance and the lower Appellate Court h...
Tag this Judgment!Jhabbu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All354; 55Ind.Cas.993
Piggott, J.1. The applicant Jhabboo was one of the accused persons in a case under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code. This was a summons case and was properly tried under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It so happened that Jhabboo was also one of the accused in another case of a more serious nature, which was being tried as a warrant case in the Court of the same Magistrate at about the same time. Jhabboo undertook to prove an alibi in his defence, in both cases, and asked the Court to issue process for the attendance of a certain witne Sections The Magistrate allowed his application and repeatedly postponed the trial of the summons case in order that the witness in question might be examined for the defence on one and the same date in both cases. Finally he refused to adjourn either of the cases any further and proceeded to deliver judgment in both of them without having examined this particular witness for the defence. In a connected application I have held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All77; 55Ind.Cas.679
Piggott, J.1. One Harihar Prasad, who is the applicant before this Court, brought a formal complaint in the Court of a Magistrate of the first class, alleging that he had been abused and beaten by the officer in charge of a certain Police station, The complaint was taken cognizance of under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate, after examining the complainant, decided to direct a preliminary enquiry to be made by a Deputy Superintendent of Police. I presume that the enquiry which followed was a 'local investigation' within the meaning of that expression in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The officer conducting it seems to have recorded statements made by witnesses who came forward on behalf of Harihar Prasad and by another witness, a certain ekka driver, in respect of whom it is a matter of controversy before me whether he was put forward by Harihar Prasad or by the accused Police Officer. It seems also to have been ascertained that there were definite...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All170(1); 55Ind.Cas.733
George Knox, J.1. This case has been properly reported to this Court. It appears that a person who had been ordered to produce a surety for good behaviour tendered one Durga Singh as surety. The Police were ordered to furnish a report in regard to Durga Singh's good or bad character and the Tahsildar of the locality to furnish a report as regards his status and position. Upon receiving these reports the Magistrate passed the following order: 'From the Police report it appears that this surety, Durga Singh, was challaned in a theft case. He is not a reliable man, under the circumstances his offer as surely cannot be accepted. The accused should produce surety of good character to the satisfaction of the Court.' This order cannot be accepted. It does not by any means follow that a person, who has once been challaned for a theft, is not a reliable person. It must be within the learned Magistrate's experience that it is not every person, who is challaned by the Police, who is not a reliabl...
Tag this Judgment!Deonandan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All33; 55Ind.Cas.863
P.C. Benerji, J.1. This application for revision must be allowed and the conviction of the applicant under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code must be set aside. The applicant Deonandan was tried by a Magistrate of the First Class under the aforesaid section. The Magistrate was of opinion that Deonandan along with two other persons had taken or enticed away Musammat Jagwatia, the wife of the complainant, with intent that illicit intercourse would be had with her by some person. The Magistrate convicted him. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence for the prosecution upon the question of the woman having been taken or enticed away. He found, however, that the woman had been seen custide the house of Deonandan and from that he apparently concluded that she bad been concealed or detained with intent to commit adultery with her or for the purpose of illicit intercourse with some one else. Upon this finding this conclusion could not follow. If the woman was seen outsi...
Tag this Judgment!Nanka Urf Natha Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All138; 55Ind.Cas.734
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order directing the applicant under Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code to furnish security for good behaviour, on the ground that the applicant was unable to give a satisfactory account of himself. It appears that in the city of Meerut a number of persons, consisting of adults, women, boys and girls, were encamped at the camping ground. They had some ponies with them. The suspicion of the Police was roused against the men belonging to the party and a case was instituted against them calling upon them under Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code to show cause why they should not furnish security for good behaviour, on the ground that they bad no ostensible means of subsistence and that they could not give a satisfactory account of themselves. The learned Magistrate who tried the case was of opinion that the first part of the charge was not established, but; he came to the conclusion that the persons who had been pl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »