Allahabad Court February 1920 Judgments
Sada Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All289; 58Ind.Cas.253
George Knox, J.1. The broad facts of the case out of which this application arises are as follows:-- The accused Sada Ram borrowed Rs.1,500 from one Sunehra on a registered mortgage-bond of the 26th of March 1914. He borrowed Rs. 500 more from the same man on' a registered bond of the I5th of April 1914. The bulk of the money raised on the first occasion was applied to the re payment of two previous bonds', one of August the 11th 1913 and the other dated the 13th of January 1914. When sued by Sunehra on the two binds of Mar oh and April 1914 Sada Ram pleaded minority. After a prolonged contest it was found that Sada Ram was in fact 'under twenty one years of age when he executed these bonds and that he had not attained majority, because his mother had been appointed his guardian under an order of July the 2nd 1910. It may be noted that in the guardianship certificate the data of Sada Ram's attaining majority (that is to say, completing 21 years of age) was given as September the 14th 1...
Tag this Judgment!Birjbasi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All106; 55Ind.Cas.342
Walsh, J.1. I referred this question, which came before me in revision, because it seems to me desirable that it should be decided by a Bench of two Judges which might be convened to dispose of the question once for all so far as this Court was concerned. It seemed to me a question of sufficient public importance and one which might give rise to difficulties of interpretation. The question really dealt with by the Magistrate who decided the case, was whether the Railway Authorities were authorised by law to reserve a compartment for a class of passengers in any train, and it was for the decision of that question that I decided to refer the case to a Bench of two Judges. But that question is not really the question raised by this case. The facts are that on the 29th of July of last year one Birjbasi Lal, travelling on the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, wilfully entered a third class compartment in the Up Express, which compartment had been specially reserved by the Railway Authorities ...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Makhni Vs. Farzand Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All52; 55Ind.Cas.478
George Knox, J.1. The petitioner before me is one Musammat Makhni. Her prayer is that an order passed by the District Magistrate of Mirzapur, whereby he discharged five accused persons before him, persons accused of an offence under Section 330, Indian Penal Code, may be revised, and a further enquiry directed. One of the persons accused is Farzand Ali, who is described as being a petty Zemindar of Mauza Manikpura. The others are persons more or less connected with the Police, and one of them is Abu Muhammad Khan, the Sub-lnspector in charge of Thana Ahraura.2. The charge made against the accused is a serious one, namely, of having beaten Musammat Makhni, causing hurt to her to extort a confession and to compel restoration of property alleged to have been stolen by her. The offence is triable by the Court of Session.3. The District Magistrate held a careful enquiry but came to the conclusion which he thus records in his order:That one or more of the accused ill-treated the woman and th...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Ram Partab Marwari Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.302
1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mirzapore, whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of Babu Ramji Das, Magistrate of the First Class, sentencing the applicant to a fine of Rs. 160. Several grounds are taken. The learned Counsel referred me to the procedure which was adopted in this case. There can be no doubt that the procedure abounds in irregularities and is by no means procedure authorised by law when a Court has to deal with an offence. If the irregularities were few in number, it might be possible for a Court to ignore them and to hold that they were irregularities which had crept into the case from mere carelessness or ignorance of the law. Even then it would be necessary to consider whether the irregularities complained of are such as to give cause for an apprehension that the individual prosecuted for the offence or the public would be liable to injury, but when the irregularities are so many as have take...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Pande Vs. Lachmi Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.430
Ryves, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Lunacy Act No. IV of 1912. They began by an application filed in the Court of the District Judge of Ghazipur by' one Murlidhar Pande on the 31st of March 1920. Murlidhar Pande alleged that he was a relation of Lachmi Pande and that Lachmi Pande was of unsound mind within the meaning of the Act and incapable of managing his property, and in the interests of the minors, asked to be appointed guardian of his estate. This application was immediately followed by at least two more applications by other relations of Lachmi Pande. Mata Dayal Pande was one. The procedure adopted by the then Judge of Ghazipur was not according to law. On these applicants coming before him, he examined them and found that they were all agreed that Lachmi Pande was a lunatic and they suggested that Mahadeo Prasad, who seems to have been a person of some position, was a suitable person to be appointed the guardian of the lunatic and his property. He, howev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›