Allahabad Court September 1920 Judgments
Mahar Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All245(2); 59Ind.Cas.415
Gokul Prasad, J.1. It seems that in the early part of February last one Niadar made a complaint against Mawashi and Naurang under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code for the abduction of his wife, Musammat Hardei. The Magistrate examined the complainant and, on the complainant stating that a warrant should be given to him for bringing the woman to the Court or else the accused would remove her from their house the Magistrate issued a bailable warrant for her arrest. Two constables accompanied the complainant and arrested the woman. No one stood, surety for her and, as they were taking the woman along, the accused came up and rescued the woman, but very little hurt was caused to the policemen. They were tried by a Magistrate of the second Class and convicted. They went up in appeal to the District Magistrate who dismissed the appeal saying that there was no cause for interference as the offence had been brought home to them. The points raised before me in revision are two,--(1) That th...
Tag this Judgment!Mazhar HusaIn Vs. Emperor, Through Abdul Karim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All288; 59Ind.Cas.194
Gokul Prasad, J.1. For the reasons stated at length by the learned Sessions Judge, I discharge the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court....
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rab Vs. Azmat Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All277; 59Ind.Cas.376
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of a case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code from the Court of Pandit Sheo Charan Lal, Magistrate of the First Class of Allahabad, in which one Azmat Ali is the complainant and Abdul Bab and others are accused. It appears that, on the day fixed for hearing of this case and before any witnesses were examined the applicant put in an applications for adjournment under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Clause (8), on the ground that he intended to make an application for transfer to the High Court. This application was summarily rejected. The Deputy Magistrate examined four of the prosecution witnesses and took down the statement of the accused. This was on the 23rd of July 1920. After this the Deputy Magistrate adjourned the case for the 27th of July and permitted the complainant to put in a fresh list of witnesses and for the summoning of certain records. On the same day the applicant applied for a copy of th...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Har Piari Vs. NaThe Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All227; 59Ind.Cas.401
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an application to revise an order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Government Advocate that no application in revision lies having regard to the express provision of Section 435, Clause (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the matter had not been covered by authority, I would have had some difficulty in entertaining this application in revision, because, if the High Court cannot even send for the record of proceedings under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I cannot understand on what principle it can interfere with those orders when the record has once some before it on, as I might say, an order passed for sending for the record under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was not warranted by law. However, leaving this aspect of the question aside, it has been held in a large number of cases that this Court can interfere if there has been not a proceeding e...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Ghafur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All225
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this revision are as follows:2. The accused Abdul Ghafur was declared an insolvent by the District Judge of Allahabad, Ho wanted to take some contract from the Municipal Board and found that his application would not be considered until be obtained an order to the effect that he was solvent. He thereupon went to the official receiver, who told him that he could not give him a certificate of solvency until he, the accused, proved to his satisfaction that all the outstanding debts against him had been paid up. There was an amount of Rs. 73-12-0 due from accused on account of arrears of rent to the cantonment authorities. This had been written off as bad debt, the official receiver having had no funds in haul to pay it. The accused then went away and returned a few days later with a receipt showing that the aforesaid amount; had been paid up. An application was then put in by the accused, accompanied by the said receipt and other recei...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jhabdey Alias Jhao Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All286; 59Ind.Cas.383
Gokal Prasad, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri in the case of Jhabdey alias Jhao Lal. He was convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months on the 12th August 1919. He appealed against the conviction and was out on bail during the pendency of the appeal. While he was so out on bail, proceedings were taken against him under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, and on the 27th October 1919 be was ordered to furnish a security to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The required security was not furnished and he was ordered to be rigorously imprisoned for one year until and unless the security demanded were furnished sooner. Jhabdey appealed against both the orders aforesaid. His appeal in the Section 147 case was dismissed on the 10th November 1919 and that against the order under Section 110 was dismissed on the 14th November 1919. On the 10th December 1919 the Sub-Divisional Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.200
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this revision are as follows:2. The accused, Abdul Ghafoor, was declared an insolvent by the District Judge of Allahabad. He wanted to take some contract from the Municipal Board and found that his application would not be considered until he obtained an order to the effect that be was solvent. He thereupon went to the Official Receiver, who told him that he could not give him a certificate of solvency, until he, the accused, proved to his satisfaction that all the outstanding debts against him bad been paid up. There was an amount of Rs. 73 12 due from the accused on account of arrears of rent to the Cantonment authorities. This had been written of as bad debt, the Official Receiver having bad no funds in hand to pay it. The accused then went away and returned a few days later with a receipt showing that the aforesaid amount had been paid up. An application was then put in by the accused accompanied by the said receipt and other re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›