Allahabad Court October 1924 Judgments
Nanhe Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All301
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application by one Nanhe Lal to obtain a reversal of his conviction under Section 4 of the Public Gambling Act (Act No. III of 1867).2. It appears that an Assistant Superintendent of Police, who is not authorised under Section 5 of the Public Gambling Act to search a place without a warrant, raided certain premises and arrested certain people in it, as to whom it is said that they were gambling in the house. Nanhe Lal was convicted by the Magistrate who heard the case under Section 3 and under Section 4 of the Gambling Act. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal set aside his conviction under Section 3 on the ground that it had not been proved that Nanhe had taken part in organising the gaming.3. In this Court it is contended that the only evidence on which it has been found that the place was a public gaming place consists of the statement of one Bulaqi and the fact that certain dice and other instruments of gaming were found at the place. It is urged that the c...
Tag this Judgment!(Sheikh) Muhammad Akbar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All283; 85Ind.Cas.378
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application for transfer of two cross cases now, de facto pending before Mr. Jhanki Nath Sahai, a Magistrate of Azamgarh, exercising the powers of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate.2. It appears that one Deepu filed a complaint against one Akbar. The case was sent to the Court of an Honorary Magistrate, Rai Sahib Babu Din Dayal Sahu Akbar filed a cross complaint, which was also pending before the said Honorary Magistrate. Akbar induced the Officer to send the cases back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, evidently because Akbar did not want that Sahu Din Dayal should hear the cases. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate returned the cases. Akbar then applied to the District Magistrate for transfer. The learned District Magistrate transferred both the cases from the file of Sahu Din Dayal to the file of the Tahsildar Magistrate. Then, it appears, that Deepu put in an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate asking him for transferring the cases from the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sewak Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All313a; 85Ind.Cas.382
Mukerji, J.1. After stating facts as above the judgment proceeded: This story for the prosecution has not been believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the main portion of it. Gayadin was never sent up, and the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted Ramraj. The learned Judge has found that human blood was found at or near the platform of Gayadin, a relation of Bam Sewak, and he has believed the defence story in so far as it states that Kalka Singh received his injuries near the platform of Gayadin. To reconcile the fact that blood was found near the platform of Gayadin, and the alleged fact that a part of the tiled roof of Bhagwandin's shop was found damaged, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the fight must have started at the shop of Bhagwandin and must have continued till the parties arrived at the platform of Gayadin. Indeed the Judge's finding is that Bam Sewak, the appellant, drew the quarrel upon himself by hitting, or trying to hit, Baij Nath, that he was ...
Tag this Judgment!AzimuddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All307
Mukerji, J.1. Without discussing the law on the point at length, it seems to be clear that in this case there should have been no conviction of Azimuddin under Section 64 of the Excise Act (Local Act, 1910) read with Section 71 of the same Act.2. Azimuddin's servant was found selling toddy after the prescribed hours, not at the shop of Azimuddin but in a palmgrove. The learned Sessions Judge, who has made the reference, presumes, and very correctly that the object of the servant being allowed to stay in the grove was to watch the trees and the juice, and not to sell toddy. If the servant took it into his head to keep some toddy for himself and to sell it after the prescribed hours, no amount of precaution on the part of the master could prevent this. The object of the enactment as contained in Section 71 of the Excise Act seems to have been this. Where, however, innocently, the holder of a license puts his servant in a position in which he would have an opportunity of contravening the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanokhan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All472
Mukerji, J.1. Two points have been urged in this case. The first one is that the offence was really one under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, and not one under Section 211 of the same Code. The finding is that the applicant laid a clear and definite information before the police, to the effect that there was a dacoity in his house and certain particular persons took part in it. It has been found that no dacoity took place and at any rate the persona mentioned never took part in the dacoity. The question in the circumstances is whether the ease falls under Section 211 of the Indian Panel Code, or not.2. The latest pronouncement upon the point is by Walsh, Ag. C.J. and Ryves, J., in the ease of Rashi Ram v. King-Emperor A.I.R. 1924 All. 779.3. It seems to me that there is an essential difference between a mere information to the police and a definite statement to it that a certain person has committed a certain particular offence. In the latter case which is much graver than the fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›