Allahabad Court September 1923 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Brij Bihari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All91
Sulaiman, J.1. In this revision an application has been filed on behalf of the original complainant supported by an affidavit, praying that permission be granted to compound his case.2. The complainant had filed a complaint against the accused on the allegation that the latter had cheated him in respect of a sum of Rs. 210 which had been paid by the complainant for the purchase of certain sharees of the Allahabad Tannery Ld. The accused was convicted by the trial court and that conviction was upheld on appeal. The sentence passed on him was one of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 100. An application for revision was filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence on the record to prove his guilt. Acting under., the revisional powers of this Court, I sent for the record and the revision is still pending.3. In the affidavit filed in this Court today, the complainant admits that he has received Rs. 210 of which it has been alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!Tula Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.993
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from a conviction under Section 417 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts as found by the Courts below, about which in revision there cannot be much dispute, are as follows:Some five years ago the accused had borrowed Rs. 562-8 as loans on different occasions from the complainant. The complainant was asking for the re-payment of the loan, and it is said that a serious demand was made for the return of this money last year. The accused ' is said to have made promises to re-pay. Sometime before the alleged occurrence, it is also in evidence, that he sent a letter to the complainant saying that he would be sending money under a registered cover. On the 8th of March the accused admittedly sent a registered and insured cover to the address of the complainant. When this cover was received by the complainant he did not open it at the Post Office but took it home and opened it in the presence of a number of witnesses. On o...
Tag this Judgment!Wali Muhammad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.904
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal revision from an appellate order, convicting the accused under Section 60 (a) of the Excise Act for being in possession of cocaine.2. The prosecution case was that the accused was caught red handed by a Constable while he was buying beetles and three packets of cocaine were recovered from him. A number of witnesses were produced to prove that three packets were recovered from the accused by the Constable. That evidence was believed by the learned Magistrate. It now appears that some packets, alleged to have been those which were recovered from the accused, were sent on to the Chemical Examiner who sent a report to the effect that they contained cocaine. This report however was never formally tendered in evidence at the trial, nor does it appear from the record of the Trial Magistrate's Court, that this report was used as evidence in the proceedings. No copy of it was ever placed on the record of this case. In the judgment the learned Magistrate did not...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ali Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All86
Sulaiman, J.1. This was a clear case and the only question was whether the accused was in possession of cocaine and used to sell it in his house. On search being made, four Government currency notes, which had been previously marked by the Excise Inspector and had been handed over to an informer in order to be paid for cocaine as purchase price, were actually discovered in a locked box in the house of which the accused had the key. Furthermore, the search witnesses say that as soon as the party raided the house, the accused went inside a room and tried to hold up the door against the police but it was forced open. He was also seen going to a table in a corner of a room and picking up some packets which he hurriedly put in his mouth. His mouth was forced open by a police constable and some pieces of paper were taken out but the powder had been swallowed by him. Then the evidence is that certain scales and a knife were discovered which, when later on examined by the Chemical Examiner, we...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Govind Singh Vs. Lallu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All203; (1924)ILR46All88
Sulaiman, J.1. This reference must be accepted. A private complaint was filed by Ram Gobind Singh against Lallu Singh and others and the case was being tried bythe Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. The record shows that a legal practitioner engaged by the complainant was permitted by the trying Magistrate to conduct the prosecution case. In his explanation the District Magistrate has admitted that 'it is true that the prosecuting inspector did not actually take part in the conduct of this case.' After the evidence of the complainant had been recorded, a charge was framed and it was after that stage that the accused persons made an application to the District Magistrate requesting that the case be with-drawn on certain terms. The file was sent for. When sending up the file the trying Magistrate addressed a note to the District Magistrate setting forth the facts of the case and winding up with the remark: 'I, therefore, would strongly recommend the application for your kind considerat...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jafar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All105
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision. The first point taken is that the learned District Magistrate has under an oversight rejected the application filed before him summarily and has not considered the case on the merits. It is conceded that no appeal lay to him.2. However, I have heard the learned vakil for the applicants and have also examined the grounds on which the judgment of the trial court is sought to be set aside. Two points have been urged. The first is that the prosecution evidence has not been thoroughly discussed. I cannot accept this. The judgment of the trying Magistrate, who tried the case summarily, covers more than a page in type. He has referred to the four witnesses who had seen the occurrence, and after stating what they deposed to, has come to the conclusion that they should be believed. On the finding recorded by him the accused went about canvassing, and on a refusal by the complainant to vote for him struck him with a lathi, and two of his compani...
Tag this Judgment!Shafi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.612
Sulaiman J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Budaun. The accused persons were tried jointly for offences under Sections 379, 147 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were convicted by the Trying Magistrate and their convictions were upheld by the Appellate Court.2. An application for revision was presented on behalf of the accused persons to the Court of the Sessions Judge, and the legality of the joint trial was questioned.3. The facts as found so far are that Sharfuddin and Nanhe accused were detected while stealing the crop of the complainant Chiddu Chamar, who objected to the theft and was compelled to run away to his house. After this Sharfuddin and Nanhe hearing that the complainant intended to go to the Police Station to make a report, went along with the other persons to the complainant's chaupal and there caused hurt to Chiddu, and grievous hurt to his father Nanhe. The two offences were obviously quite distinct and separate, and there was...
Tag this Judgment!Jafar HusaIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.442
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision. The first point taken, is that the learned District Magistrate has under an oversight rejected the application filed before him summarily and has not considered the case on the merits. It is conceded that no appeal lay to him.2. However, I have heard the learned Vakil for the applicants and have also examined the grounds on which the judgment of the Trial Court is sought to be set aside. Two points have been urged. The first is that the prosecutioa evidence has not been thoroughly discussed. I cannot accept this. The judgment of the Trying Magistrate, who tried the case summarily, covers more than a page in type. He has referred to the four witnesses who had seen the occurrence, and after stating what they deposed to, has come to the conclusion that they should be believed. On the finding recorded by him, the accused went about canvassing, and on a refusal by the complainant to vote for him, struck him with a lathi, and two of his comp...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Ahmad Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.615
Sulaiman, J.1. This was a cleat case and the only question was whether the accused was in possession of cocaine and used to sell it in his house. On search being mack; four Government currency notes which had been previously marked by the Excise Inspector and had been handed over to an informer in order to be paid for cocaine as purchase price were actually discovered in a locked box in the house of which the accused had the key. Furthermore, the search witnesses say that as soon as the party raided the house the accused went inside a room and tried to hold up the door against the Police but it was forced open. He was also seen going to a table in a corner of a room and picking up some packets which he hurriedly put in his mouth. His mouth was forced open by a Police Constable and some pieces of paper were taken out but the powder had been swallowed by him. Then the evidence is that certain scales and a knife were discovered which when later on examined by the Chemical Examiner, were f...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Gobind Singh Vs. Lallu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.618
Sulaiman, J.1. This reference must be accepted. A private complaint was filed by Ram Gobind Singh against Lallu Singh and others and the case was being tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. The record shows that a Legal Practitioner engaged by the complainant was permitted by the Trying Magistrate to conduct the prosecution case. In his explanation the District Magistrate has admitted that 'it is true that the Prosecuting Inspector did not actually take part in the conduct of this case.' After the evidence of the complainant had been recorded, a charge was framed and it was after that stage that the accused persons made an application to the District Magistrate requesting that the case be withdrawn on certain terms. The file was sent for. When sending up the file the Trying Magistrate addressed a note to the District Magistrate setting forth the facts of the case and winding up with the remark 'I, therefore, would strongly recommend the application for your kind considerati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›