Allahabad Court October 1923 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.
Ghariba and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All269; 81Ind.Cas.238
Walsh, J.1. I am not prepared to interfere in this case. It must be assumed that the Magistrate had some evidence of the likelihood of a breach of the peace being committed by these men before he issued notice. I am inclined to think that I went too far by saying in Jagdat Tewari v. Emperor 54 Ind. Cas. 784 : 2 U.P.L.R. (A.) 38 : 21 Cr. L. J, 176 that there must be some evidence upon the record beyond a full consent to be bound over, given by the person summoned. I find that each of these persons had the notice read out to him and in answer to the notice expressed his willingness to execute a bond for Rs. 100 to keep the peace. This is in itself evidence on which a Magistrate can act. It is really a plea of guilty, assuming the person summoned understands what he is doing. A man may waive the formal production of evidence against himself. By doing so he saves himself and the: Court unnecessary trouble, and he may well consider in the case of a notice, the reason for which he doubtless ...
Emperor Vs. Aladin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All107
Sulaiman, J.1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 19(f) of Act No. XI of 1878 (The Indian Arms Act) for having been in possession of three empty cartridge cases without a licence. The defence put forward by the accused was that he had picked them up on the road without knowing what they were. He was, however, convicted and sentenced to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment.2. The District Magistrate taking the view that empty cartridges like these do not come within the definition of ammunition as given in Section 4. of the Act, has referred this case to the High Court, and has relied on an old case of the Punjab Chief Court, Jaman Khan v. The Empress (1890) Punj. Rec., (Cr.) No. 20.3. In the Punjab case two Judges of the Punjab Chief Court expressed the view that an empty case was merely a case for ammunition, and that, therefore, an empty case of an exploded cartridge would not be called a part of ammunition or ammunition. The case could not be turned into ammunitio...
Sat NaraIn Prasad and ors. Vs. Ram Auter and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.221
1. This was a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The plaintiffs pleaded that they were unable to produce any written instrument of mortgage. They tendered certain evidence to prove that, in the year 1869, in the District of Mirzapur, certain parties had mortgaged certain land with possession to certain other parties, in return for a payment of Rs. 200. Other points regarding the title of the plaintiff's to represent the interest of the original mortgagors, and also with regard to certain other charges on the land set up by the defendants in possession, were gone into. All questions in issue were decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs, and they got a decree for redemption on payment of Rs. 200. The defendants then went up in first appeal. Their first plea was that the plaintiffs had totally failed to prove their title to redeem the mortgage, and also the particular mortgage set up by them. There were other pleas taken with respect to the other transactions which the defe...
Uttam Chand Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1923
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.46
Sulaiman, J.1. In this case Uttam Chand Singh has been ordered to furnish under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. a bond and two sureties to keep the peace for one year or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for that period.2. The proceedings in this case appear to have been very irregular from the very start. Originally a complaint under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was filed against Uttam Chand Singh, but it was dismissed. Without any fresh complaint, or, any report by the Police, a case under that section was started on the 12th of May 1923 under a robkar purporting to have been based on, some Police report. No such Police report is on the file, nor is there any order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received and other particulars as required by Section 112 of the Cr.P.C. The provisions of that section ought to have been complied with strictly.3. Another irregularity was that although under Section 117(2) of the Code, the enquiry should as nearly as practicab...
Ram DIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All437; 77Ind.Cas.815
Sulaiman, J.1. This reference must be accepted. The accused has been convicted under Section 9(a) and (6) of Act XII of 1882 (Salt Act) for having manufactured saltpetre without a license.2. He originally had license in the year 1922, which expired on the 31st of July 1922. He did not take out any fresh license until the 24th of April 1923. On that date the Salt Inspector visited a certain building, which is said to have been the place of the former factory of the applicant, and found a woman at work there. It is said that as soon as she saw him she threw into a pan some staff which she was manufacturing. A quantity of this, however, was taken out of the pan by the Inspector, and it is said to have been indelible salt. On these facts the accused was convicted under the Salt Act.3. There are several difficulties in the way of the prosecution. The first point to note is, which by the way has not been noted by the learned Sessions Judge, that at least on the very day, the 24th of April 19...
Umrao and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.181
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal appeal from a conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Some of the facts of this case cannot be disputed. Kunwar Karan Singh is a zemindar who owns about 16 biswas share of land in village Gajraula. In the beginning of January 1923 some trees growing on the land of certain tenants were cut down under the orders of Kunwar Karan Singh. Two of these trees were allowed to be removed by him without any protest from these tenants. A pipal tree growing on a field belonging to Umrao, appellant No. 1, was also cut down under the orders of Kunwdr Karan Singh while Umrao was absent. This tree, however, was not removed from the field and was allowed to he there for some time. On the 23rd of March 1923 the zemindar sent some carpenters to saw the trunk and then to remove it. A protest was made on behalf of Umrao who asserted a right in himself. The carpenters, therefore, had to come away and nothing further was heard of till the 2nd of April 1923 wh...
Sarda Saran Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.997
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from a conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The applicant Sarda Saran was a temporary clerk at Lucknow, and took leave from the 23rd of January 1923 till the 31st of January of that year. While he was on casual leave he went to Cawnpore and was appointed a permanent Head Clerk of the Cawnpore Cantonments by a Temporary Cantonment Magistrate. He applied to the Lucknow Authorities for an extension of his leave but originally this leave was not granted. It is not disputed that his casual leave expired on 31st of January 1923. On the 2nd of February 1923 he had been informed that he was ineligible under the rules for a permanent appointment.3. Captain Pocock, prosecution witness No. 3, states that he told the accused that he could not consider his retention in the Cantonment Magistrate's Office, whereon the accused informed him that he had resigned his post in the Military Accounts Department, and that it would entail considera...
Sheo Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Mahangoo Nonia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.828
Sulaiman, J.1. This reference must be accepted. The accused persons were bound over under Section 107 of, the Criminal Procedure Code and were also ordered to pay Rs. 75 as costs of the case to be paid to the complainant Mahangoo.2. Under Section 117 Sub-clause (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code the enquiry had to be as nearly as might be practicable in the manner prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases. That provision was ignored and the case was tried as if it were a warrant case.3. Then again the order as to the payment of costs was altogether illegal. Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot possibly apply to a case under Section 107 inasmuch as no fine was or could have been imposed. The order directing the accused persons to pay Rs. 75 as costs to the complainant was therefore ultra vires.4. On the merits too the case must fall to the ground. Only three witnesses were produced by the complainant and none of them expressly stated that t...
Babu Ram Vs. Musammat Kokla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All391; 79Ind.Cas.634
1. This is an appeal by a husband whose suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The learned District Judge not having decided certain points we propose to decide them ourselves under the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These are the facts as we find them. The appellant is a Brahman. Many years ago he turned his wife out of doors stating that he suspected her chastity. The woman went to live with her uncle who supported her. She then applied to the Criminal Court for a maintenance order under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and she obtained an order awarding her sufficient maintenance. It is to be noted that under the law she could not have recieved maitenance if without sufficient reason she refused to live with her husband or if they were living separately by mutual consent. The plaintiff has admitted that when the maintenance proceedings were in progress before the Magistrate he even then refused...
Emperor Vs. Lachman and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All92
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh. It has been found by the courts below that Sia Ram complainant was put in possession of the southern portion of the house in dispute by the Civil Court Amin on the 10th of December, 1922, in pursuance of an appellate order of the Civil Court. In spite of the possession having been given to Sia Ram as found by the courts below, the accused again took possession of the house forcibly on the 29th of December, 1922. It has been found that force was used and Sia Ram was intimidated and was prevented from getting into the house. Accordingly the accused have been convicted of the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no question of interference with that order.2. The trial court, however, omitted to pass any order under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellate court, after upholding the conviction and sentence, directed that the trying Magistrate should restore...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »