Allahabad Court February 1920 Judgments
Lachman Chamar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All43; 56Ind.Cas.209
Piggott, J.1. The applicant Lachman has been convicted under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code of detaining a young woman of the name of Dhakhia with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with himself, he knowing or having reason to believe the said woman to be the wife of his caste fellow, Harihar. The evidence shows that about the month of March 1919 Harihar allowed this woman to go away with her grandmother. A month later the complainant want to look for his wife and was told by the grandmother that she had gone off with somebody and that her whereabouts were unknown. He eventually traced her to the house of the accused Lachman in a village in another district. There is no evidence whatever that Lachman knew or had any reason to believe that Dhakhia was the wife of another man up to the time when Harihar arrived at his house and demanded the woman. There is no real reason for disbelieving Lachman's assertion, supported by evidence, that the grandmother represented Musammat...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dharam Raj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All345
Piggott, J.1. The question in this case is as to the propriety of an order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, binding over Dharam Raj and three other persons to keep the peace, the said order following a conviction recorded under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence in question is one of aggra vated house-trespass; the particular aggravation need not be considered. The question is, what] was the nature of the house trespass of -which these applicants were found guilty. The finding is that they came with lathis prepared to assault Rai Singh, ziladar of the Court of Wards; that Dharam Raj aimed a blow at the ziladar which was caught by the thatch of the house; that the ziladar then took refuge inside his house and closed the door, hut the four applicants pushed the door open and assaulted the ziladar inside Ms own house. It follows that the criminal trespass of which these men have been convicted is the entry of a house with intent to commit the offence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharamraj and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All164; 55Ind.Cas.304
Piggott, J.1. The question in this case is as to the propriety of an order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure binding over Dharamraj and three other persons to keep the peace, the said order following a conviction recorded under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence in question is one of aggravated house-trespass; the particular aggravation need not be considered. The question is, what was the nature of the house-trespass of which these applicants were found guilty? The finding is that they came with lathis prepared to assault Rai Singh, Ziladar of the Court of Wards, that Dharamraj aimed a blow at the Ziladar which was caught by the thatch of the house, that the Ziladar then took refuge inside his house and closed the doors, but the four applicants pushed the door open and assaulted the Ziladar inside his own house. It follows that the criminal trespass of which these men have been convicted is the entry of a house with intent to commit the offence of caus...
Tag this Judgment!Karamatullah and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.852
Walsh, J.1. I accept the reference in this case and direst that the convictions be quashed and the fines, if paid, be refunded.2. With reference to the practice mentioned by the Magistrate, the attention of the District Magistrate should be drawn to the matter and some circular issued to prevent the repetition of this mistaken practice, so that warrants may be signed in accordance with the provisions of the Coda in future....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhikki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.1006
Walsh, J.1. This case has been referred to me because the learned Judge realises that in the, oases of Bhikki, Mihi Lai Gaddar. Karna Kala, Ramdhan, Kanha and Nathi Jat, who had already been convicted of another dacoity by another Sessions Judge and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment amounting in all to 6 years' rigorous imprisonment each, he could neither pass a nominal sentence, nor order an adequate sentence to be served concurrently with the sentences already imposed. He did in fact make an order that the sentences should run concurrently and then referred the case to this Court to enable this Court to revise the order which made the two sentences concurrent, if in the opinion of this Court the said order be not proper according to law.2. The absence of a provision in the Code enabling a Judge to make sentences in different cases run concurrently is a casus omissus by the Legislature. Section 35 limits the power to a case of conviction at one trial of two or more distinct o...
Tag this Judgment!DIn Dayal Vs. Gur Saran Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All253(2); (1920)ILR42All336
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. In our opinion, the decision of the learned Judge of this Court is correct. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!DIn Dayal Vs. Gursaran Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.67
Abdul Raoof, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for contribution brought by Nanak Pershad, plaintiff, in whose place the present respondents have been substituted as his legal representatives, against Din Dayal, defendant appellant. In order to understand the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to set out, in some detail, the facts which are either found or admitted by the parties.2. A list of seven houses is attached to the plaint. One Ganga Pershad is stated to have been the owner of these houses. On the 16th of August 1903 the said Ganga Pershad contracted to sell house No. 1 to one Gurdayal, brother of the defendant-appellant, for Rs. 80, out of which Rs. 40 was paid in advance at once. On 20th of April 1905, he mortgaged the house No. 1 along with the six other houses to one Kallumal for Rs. 600. On the 16th August 190(sic) he executed a second mortgage for Rs. 400 in favour of the same Kallumal, mortgaging the same houses. On the 5th of January 1907 Gurdayal...
Tag this Judgment!Mansa Ram Vs. Ganga Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All334
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows: One Ganga Ram mortgaged his property on the 27th of November, 1896, to one Tika Ram. It was apparently a usufructuary mortgage, because he took from Tika Ram a lease of his sir lands agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 60. In December, 1908, he sold his equity of redemption to Mansa Ram, the present appellant before us, and he then executed a kabuliat, which was registered, under which he continued to hold his sir lands at the rental of Rs. 60. His sir lands constituted two holdings, the rental of one was fixed at Rs. 12 and the rental of the other at Rs. 48. He clearly at that time was an ex-proprietary tenant, but the patwari, for reasons best known to himself, recorded him as a non-occupancy tenant. In 1913, Mansa Ram redeemed the mortgage and became full proprietor of the estate, He then brought a suit Co eject Ganga Ram from the holding, the rent of which was Rs. 12. In that case they came to an a...
Tag this Judgment!Munsa Ram Vs. Ganga Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All119; 55Ind.Cas.889
1. The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows: One Ganga Ram mortgaged his property on November the 27th, 1896, to one Tika Ram. It was apparently a usufructuary mortgage, because be took from Tika Ram a lease of his sir lands agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 60. in December 1908 he sold his equity of redemption to Mansa Ram, the present appellant, before us, and he then executed a kabuliyut which was registered, under which he continued to hold his sir lands at the rental of Rs. 60. His sir lands constituted two holdings; the rental of one was fixed at Rs. 12 and the rental of the other at Rs. 48. He clearly at that time was an ex-proprietary tenant but the Patwari, far reasons best known to himself, recorded him as a non-occupancy tenant. In 1913 Mansa Ram redeemed the mortgage and became full proprietor of the estate. He then brought a suit to eject Ganga Ram from the holding the rent of which was Rs. 12. In that case they came to an agreement and filed a compromise. Under...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Kishan and ors. Vs. Kalla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All8; 55Ind.Cas.859
George Knox, J.1. This revision is immediately connected with the previous case (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 288 of 1919) in which I have just passed orders. The prayer is that an order be issued directing that no further proceedings be taken against the petitioners on the complaint now alleged against them, In the case Queen-Empress v. Umedan A.W.N. (1895), 86 this Court pointed out that there was nothing in the law which prohibited a Magistrate, who had dismissed a complaint under Section 203, from reviving proceedings should he, upon a second complaint, consider that there was good ground for proceeding against an accused person. We pointed out that there might be great fear of miscarriage of justice if a complainant, who had made a hasty complaint and had had his complaint dismissed, found himself prevented upon the discovery of good evidence from taking further proceedings against an accused person. I was a party to that judgment and it was my intention to make it clear that while ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »