Allahabad Court November 1921 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.
Ganga Sahai Vs. Jaswant and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.441
Stuart, J.1. The view taken by the District Magistrate must prevail. When the case came on before Mr. Zamiruddin, he transferred it for trial under the provisions of Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having done that, he had no power to transfer it again and in no circumstances are the proceedings before the Third Class Magistrate effective. It was legally transferred to the Raja of Partapnagar, Magistrate of the Second Class. All subsequent proceedings are null and void. The case must go back to the Raja of Partapnagar for trial. I order accordingly....
Muhammad Ata and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Musammat Nannhon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All158; 67Ind.Cas.498
Stuart, J.1. The charge against the applicants was that they had committed theft by cutting and taking away the crop sowed by Musammat Nannhon. The Trial Court found distinctly that the crop in question had been sown by Musammat Nannhon and out by the accused without any right. They ware thus guilty of theft which may have been a technical theft, They were convicted accordingly. In appeal the point was raised that the crop in question stood upon fields which were in the cultivatory possession of the applicants themselves, The Magistrate who heard the appeal directed an enquiry upon that point. He had no right to direct an enquiry. If he liked be could have taken further evidence, There was not the slightest necessity to direct an enquiry as it was proved that the crop in question had been sown by the complainant. The Patwari and Janki Prasad prove this. It is not of the least consequence whether the complainant has or has not good title to the cultivation of the fields in question. It ...
Birju Marwari and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All387; 65Ind.Cas.491
1. In the Court of Session of Gorakhpur, as established under Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a Sessions Judge and there are, or have been, also two Additional Sessions Judges. There was a criminal appeal filed by Birju and others against their conviction by a Magistrate. So far as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure go, any one of the Judges of the Court of Session competent to exercise jurisdiction in the said Court could lawfully have heard that appeal. For the convenience of the administration, the Local Government had limited the powers of the Second Additional Sessions Judge to the trial of cases or appeals made over to him by the Sessions Judge. This particular appeal was made over to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, but circumstances subsequently occurred which made it more convenient for the Sessions Judge to hear the appeal himself. After proper notice to the parties he proceeded to do so. The question has been raised whether in so doin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›