Allahabad Court August 1923 Judgments
Bharos Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All192; 81Ind.Cas.558
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from a conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. On the 23rd of April 1923 a burglary was committed in the house of one Musammat, Maharaji, and she made a report the next morning, giving a list of articles including wearing apparel. It is important to note that among the articles she mentioned was a dhoti said to have had a tear in the border. A few days after that the Police searched the accused's house and, it is said, in the presence of two search witnesses, only one of whom has been examined in this Case, a dhoti was found hanging on a peg in a room which has no roof over it. This room contained some other articles of house-hold besides the dhoti. In front of this room there is another room, which is covered by a roof, and then there is a thatched portion of the house in which the accused, his wife and children live.2. Musammat Maharaji and her son both recognised the dhoti as belonging to them, and the accused has been convic...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Prasad and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.598
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from a conviction under Section 109 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Both the applicants are residents of the city of Cawnpore and it is not disputed that they have some means of subsistence at that place. On the 7th of April 1923 the Sub-Inspector of the Circle received information that two strangers had arrived in his village Bharthana, and that they were concealing their presence in a house. When he proceeded towards the village his informer pointed out to him two men who were going away from the village across the field, and it is said that they were going by a footpath which is not much frequented. They Avere pursued and ultimately arrested.3. The Trying Magistrate relying on the evidence of two witnesses, Kailash Chander and Ganga, came to the conclusion that these accused persons were taking precautions to conceal their presence in that village with a view to committing an offence. This view has been accepted by the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Ismail Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.600
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application on behalf of Muhammad Ismail from an order passed against him under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Proceedings were taken against the applicant along with three other persons tinder the above section by means of a Police report. So far as the Police report is concerned it is conceded that there, was no suggestion whatever in it which would show that all the persons against whom the proceedings were started were members of a gang. It also does appear from the judgment of the learned Magistrate that an objection was raised on behalf of the accused as to the impropriety, not to say illegality, of a joint trial.3. The learned Magistrate, in his judgment, observed that although it was true that Ismail was not specifically named in the initial report and that the Police report is silent on the point of the accused belonging to a gang, he thought that inasmuch as the evidence had been led on behalf of the prosecution that the four accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Habib-ul-razzaq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All81
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from an order convicting the applicant under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against the accused is to be spilt up into two parts, although the sentence is one for both the convictions.2. The first charge against the accused was that he extorted a sum of Rs. 45 and a further sum of Rs. 20 from one Jodha Teli. It appears that the Co-operative Bank had a decree against one Bihari Brahmin, and others. In execution of this decree, the amin was sent to the village to attach property belonging to the judgment-debtors. Mr. Tandon, the Assistant Manager, the present accused, who is the Secretary of the Society, and the auditor of the Bank also appear to have accompanied the amin to the village. It is said that on the 29th of November, 1921, the accused pointed out certain crops as belonging to the judgment-debtors, and on the crops having been so pointed put, the amin attached them. The document signed by the amin shows that the crops w...
Tag this Judgment!Habibul Razzaq Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All197; 81Ind.Cas.609
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from an order convicting the applicant under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The case, against the accused is to be split up into two parts, although the sentence is one for both the convictions.2. The first charge against the accused was that he extorted a sum of Rs. 45 and a further sum of Rs. 20 from one Jodha Teli. It appears that the Co-operative Bank had a decree against one Behari, Brahmin and others. In execution of this decree the amin was sent to the village to attach property belonging to the judgment-debtors. Mr. Tandon, the Assistant Manager, the present accused, who is the Secretary of the Society, and the auditor of the Bank also appear to have accompanied the amin to the village. It is said that on the 29th of November, 1921, the accused pointed out certain crops as belonging to the judgment-debtors, and on the crops having been so pointed out, the amin attached them. The document signed by the amin shows that the crops w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram AdhIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All230; 81Ind.Cas.613
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision. Two main points have been urged strongly. The first one is that inasmuch as there were originally thirteen persons, nine of whom have been acquitted, the conviction of the remaining four under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code was illegal. As to this I may point out that the learned District Magistrate has gone into the question and has come to the conclusion that there can be no doubt that a very large number of persons had joined in the attack. The only doubt which he felt was as to the identity of most of the thirteen persons named and he had no doubt in his mind that more than five persons had taken part in the beating. The conviction under Section 147 is, therefore, not illegal.2. The next point urged is that the order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was improper inasmuch as no notice to show cause had been issued to the applicants. On their behalf, it is contended that the proper procedure for the Appellate...
Tag this Judgment!Chedi Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All224; (1924)ILR46All80; 81Ind.Cas.615a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge at Mirzapur. It appears that there were two trials before a Magistrate of the third class. Ram Lal was convicted under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code in one and three, other accused persons were convicted under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code in the other. Both these accused persons preferred an appeal to the District Magistrate, who allowed ther appels, set aside the convictions and released the accused. In addition to this, he called upon the complainant to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation under Section 250 of the Indian Penal Code. Eventually he ordered the complainant to pay Rs. 20 as compensation to Ram Lal and Rs. 10 each to the other three accused.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred these cases to this Court with a recommendation that the order awarding compensation should be set aside as being without jurisdiction.3. In my opinion this reference must be ac...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Anis Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All77
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused having been charged with poisoning with dhatura a number of persons including one Musammat Chando, who is a girl of about 12 years. The accused is about 16 years of age, and it is the prosecution case that he became infatuated with the girl Musammat Chando and began to make advances to her and did various tricks to make her inclined towards him. It is said that he first got her brother Narain to take a cake of soap and crochet needle and ten annas that Musammat Chando might knit him something. He also asked her brother to get him some earth from below her left foot. He then tried to get some sweets sent to her through one Manohar, who refused to take them. Ultimately he persuaded Kanhaiya, a boy of about 12 years of age, to take five peras, one of which is said to have contained dhatura, in order that they might be given to Musammat Chando and other members of her family. There ca...
Tag this Judgment!Anis Beg Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All215; 84Ind.Cas.1053
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused having been charged with poisoning with dhatura a number of persons including one Musammat Chando, who is a girl of about 12 years. The accused is about 16 years of age, and it is the prosecution case that he became infatuated with the girl Musammat Chando and began to make advances to her and did various tricks to make her inclined towards him. It is said that he first got her brother Narain to take a cake of soap and crochet needle and ten annas that Musammat Chando might knit him something. He also asked her brother to get him some earth from below her left foot. He then tried to get some sweets sent to her through one Manohar, who refused to take them. Ultimately he persuaded Kanhaiya, a boy of about 12 years of age, to take five peras one of which is said to have contained dhatura, in order that they might be given to Musammat Chando and other members of her family. There can...
Tag this Judgment!Sarju Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.595
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application for revision from an order of the. District Magistrate of Cawnpore, dated the 7th of April 1923. The point urged against it is that this order was passed without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.2. It is not necessary to go into the previous history of the litigation, and it is sufficient to say that while a criminal case was pending before Mr. Christie, having been brought by Gauri Charan Misir against Shanker Prasad, an agreement was signed by Sarju Prasad (the present applicant) undertaking to pay Rs. 4,000 to the complainant in case the criminal case was withdrawn. This agreement was filed by Gauri Charan Misir.3. Later on it was discovered that one word 'amanat' in the document had been cut out and it purports to have been initialled. The offence being a non-compoundable one there was of coiirse no compromise but ultimately the accused was acquitted.4. In a separate enquiry Mr. Christie recorded some evidence, and then in a long repo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›