Allahabad Court September 1924 Judgments
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All250
Mukerji, J.1. Four persons, Ram Prasad, Sheo Prasad, Bhairon Prasad and Naubat Singh, have come up before this Court with a petition in revision to revise an order calling upon them to furnish security to be of good behaviour for three years under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. There seems to have been some amount of confusion in procedure in the Court below. By an order dated the 15th of March, 1924 a learned Magistrate called-1 upon seven persons, the four applicants and Mian Khan Jwala Prasad and Nizarm Shah, to show cause why they should not be bound over on the ground that they were 'habitual dacoits and belonged to the dangerous gang of Dhani and Ram Kishan, dacoits'. After hearing the case the learned Magistrate modified his notice and bound over two of the seven persons, viz., Jwala Prasad and Nizam Shah to furnish security for one year only. He ordered that so far as the five persons were concerned who have been asked to furnish security for three years, the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Zabar Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All477; 85Ind.Cas.726
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the learned District Magistrate of Meerut ordering a further inquiry into the case started by one Ram Sarup against the applicants.2. It appears that Ram Sarup filed a complaint that the applicants in the course of the night out and removed the crops which he had grown on his field. The accused parsons stated in defence that they did not do the act attributed to them, and urged that the casa had been falsely brought against them on account of some revenue litigation. The learned Deputy Magistrate heard the entire evidence that was adduced before him, and he says 'the witnesses have differed materially from each other on several points in cross-examination, and they have left a general impression on my mind that the evidence is unworthy of credit.3. The learned Deputy Magistrate having discharged the applicants, the opposite-party went up to the District Magistrate who has ordered a further enquiry into the case.4. The question ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad HusaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All295
Mukerji, J.1. The applicant was put in charge of a boy, below the age of 14, by his father, for the purpose of being taught the holy Koran. The father, the boy and the applicant were then at Jaunpur. The father took leave and went away from Jaunpur, where he was serving under the Court of Wards; and the boy remained under the temporary guardianship of the applicant. The applicant, during the absence of the father, took away the boy with him; and the father heard nothing of the boy for several months. At last he made a report to the police. Later on the father got a letter from the boy addressed from Dehra Dun. He went up and found the boy and the applicant in the same house. The applicant ran away. The boy was brought away by the father. On these facts, the applicant has been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Tufail Ahmad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All301a
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut, recommending that the conviction of seven persons, Tufail Ahmad and others, may be set aside and the fine inflicted upon them may be remitted, on the ground of misjoinder of parties in the trial.2. It appears that at Ghaziabad the two festivals of Shabbarat and Dulendi fell on the same day and the same evening, A sort of arrangement was agreed upon, to the effect that the firing of fire-works should be stopped till the procession of Dulendi passed off. It appears, however, that this arrangement was not adhered to, and some people, fired off fire-works, and thereby caused more or less damage and injury to the person and property of the public. On a complaint being made by one Babu Har Saran Das and others, a report was called for, and, in the result the learned District Magistrate tried the case against thirteen persons, some of whom were acquitted by him. He convicted ten persons of an offence under Section 286 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sukh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All299
Mukerji, J.1. It appears that two parties fought at a public place, and in the course of the fight, the applicants caused hurt to certain persons. Two cases were started, one under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code against eleven persons at the instance of the police. The other case was started at the complaint of private parties who received injuries. There were separate trials, as has been already observed, and the applicants were separately convicted as the result of the two trials. In revision No. 470 the judgment was pronounced earlier, for we find in the Magistrate's judgment, in the hurt case, that he refers to his earlier judgment. The two judgments were pronounced on the same day.2. In revision No. 470 of 1924, which arises out of the charge under Section 160, the only point urged is one of sentence. The sentence passed is one of rather a, heavy fine. So far as Ram Sukh and Brikbhan are concerned, they were fined in the sum of Rs. 100 each. In view of what I am going to say...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Nand and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All298a
Mukerji, J.1. The applicants were charged before a learned Magistrate with the offence of house trespass under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, and were discharged by that Magistrate. The complainant went to the Sessions Judge and that learned Judge has ordered a further enquiry into the facts.2. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge.3. It was urged by the learned Counsel holding the brief for the counsel of the applicants, that it was not competent for the Sessions Judge to order a further enquiry on the facts, because the learned Magistrate had taken all the evidence that had been adduced on behalf of the complainant. Several cases were cited in support of this proposition of law I have examined those cases, and I have also examined the Full Bench case of Queen Empress v. Chotu (1886) 9 All. 52. I think, to say that a further enquiry cannot be ordered by the Sessions Judge on the same facts as have been considered by the learned Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad HusaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.428
Mukerji, J.1. The applicant was put in charge of a boy, below the age of 14, by his father, for the purpose of being taught the Holy Qoran. The father, the boy and the applicant were then at Jaunpur. The father took leave and went away from Jaunpur, where he was serving under the Court of Wards; and the boy remained under the temporary guardianship of the applicant. The applicant, during the absence of the father, took away the boy with him; and the father heard nothing of the boy for several months. At last he made a report to the Police. Later on the father got a letter from the boy addressed from Dehra Dun. He went up and found the boy and the applicant in the same house. The applicant ran away. The boy was brought away by the father. On these facts, the applicant has been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that, the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Chittar Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All303; 85Ind.Cas.650
Sulaiman, J.1. His Lordship after discussing facts and evidence, proceeded:The first piece of evidence which requires consideration is the so-called first information report. There are two fatal objections to its admissibility. In the first place, it was by no means a first information report. Ram Datt and Bisal constables had received information from Ram Singh and Havildar and had deputed Mithu chaukidar to inform the Sub-Inspector. The Sub-Inspector who was the officer-in-charge of the police station received the first information from Mithu chaukidar even though that information was a secondhand one. As the offence complained of was a cognizable one, the officer should have treated that information as the first information Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly contemplates the first information received to be recorded, and not a statement made by a witness during investigation after the Sub-Inspector has actually arrived on the scene and himself seen what has happen...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All413; 85Ind.Cas.647
1. This is a criminal appeal from a conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, sentencing the appellant to death. The case is also before us for confirmation.2. The murder is said to have taken place on the 7th of February, 1916, but it is the prosecution case that the accused has been absconding all this time and hence the delay to bring him on his trial.3. The case for the prosecution is that-there was enmity between the appellant Mohan Singh and the deceased Baldeo Singh; as well as between the deceased and one Bhagwant Singh. Bhup Singh was a distant relation of these people, and it is said that his wife or mistress had died shortly before the murder and there was a shradh ceremony going to be performed. Bhup Singh had; invited these men, and Mohan Singh and Bhagwan Singh had refused to join the-ceremony unless Baldeo also went there. Ultimately Baldeo consented to go to the ceremony. Mohan Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Baldeo Singh started together, accompanied by Shib Singh, w...
Tag this Judgment!Tulli and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All185; 85Ind.Cas.130
1. His Lordship after setting out facts as given above and dealing with the evidence proceeded as follows:It has bean strongly contended on behalf of the appellants that the statements of the witnesses who have resiled from their former statements, though admissible, are not satisfactory proof of the accused's complicity. Reliance has been placed on three cases reported in Queen-Empress v. Jeochi (1898) 21 All. 111, Queen-Empress v. Nirmal Das (1900) 22 All. 445 and Emperor v. Dwarka Kurmi (1906) 28 All. 683. It was conceded in all those oases that previous statements of the witnesses made before the Committing Magistrate were admissible though of course ordinarily they should not be acted upon if the witnesses have gone bask upon them and there is no evidence to corroborate them. It was nowhere laid down that such statements are not evidence and can never be acted upon. We may also point out that in the amended Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 288 now stands as follows:The evidence...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »