Allahabad Court December 1925 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.
Wilayati Begam and anr. Vs. Firm Jhandu Mal-muthu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.897
1. A question of limitation arises in connection with this application for leave to appeal' to His Majesty in Council. The judgment of this Court was delivered on the 30th of March 1925, and admittedly the application for leave to appeal was not presented till the 20th of October 1925.2. Certain reasons are given in explanation of the delay. It is said that some time had to be taken for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the decree of this Court, and further it is said that some time was taken for the purpose of obtaining a copy of this Court's judgment.3. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that if both the periods just referred to can be taken into consideration and allowed, then the application for leave to appeal is within time. It is conceded, however, that if Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the case now before us, then it must be held that the application for leave is beyond time.4. Section 12 of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion ...
MustaqimuddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All297
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision in a case in which sureties' bonds have been ordered to be forfeited under Section 514, Criminal P.C. Two points of law are raised: (1) That the bonds were given for attendance in the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate and that the liabilities of the sureties came to an end when the case was transferred to another Court. (2) That on 22nd September the Magistrate passed an order directing the accused in the case to give security for three years, but allowed him ten days' time, up to 3rd October, to file security. It was on this latter date that he absconded. The applicant contends that his liability came to an end on 22nd September.2. Owing to a change in the law the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate ceased to exist in March 1924; and it appears from the Magistrate's order that all cases from that Court were transferred to the Court of B. Jai Narain, Special Magistrate. In my opinion the terms of the security bond given in Form No. 42 of...
Hafiz MustaqimuddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.889
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision in a case in which sureties bonds have been ordered to be forfeited under Section 514 of the Cr.P.C. Two points of law are raised:(1) That the bond a were given for attendance in-the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate and that the liabilities of the sureties came to an end when the case was transferred to another Court.(2) That on 22nd September, the Magistrate passed an order directing the accused in the case to give security for three years, but allowed him ten days' time up to. 3rd October to file the security. It was on this latter date that he absconded. The applicant contends that his liability came to an end on 22nd September.2. Owing to a change in the law the Court of the Cantonment Magistrate ceased to exist in March 1924; and it appears from the Magistrate's order that all cases from that Court were transferred to the Court of B. Jai Narain, Special Magistrate in my opinion, the terms of the security bond given in Form No. 42 ...
Emperor (Through Shib Narain) Vs. Bhik Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All307
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for transfer of a case under Section 304-A from the Muttra district under the following circumstances:The accused by digging his land had undermined the foundation of the applicant's wall. The applicant's house collapsed in consequence and I am informed that three persons were killed. A police inquiry followed and the accused was challenged under Section 304-A. When the case came into Court the applicant who is the owner of the house and the father of two of the persons who were killed filed a complaint under Section 304-A. Strictly speaking he should have been examined on that complaint, but the order passed by the Magistrate was in substance a reasonable one. It was that he was already inquiring into the matter on the police chalan, but that he was willing to hear any witnesses put forward by the complainant and decide after hearing them whether he should deal with the case under Section 304-A.2. The present application was put in at' a late stage...
Mt. Masala Vs. Emperor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All368
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Magistrate of Basti on appeal from a conviction under Sections 352 and 426, Indian Penal Code, The case was instituted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who made it over to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar convicted the accused and sentenced them to payment of fine, No question of the application of the Village Panchayat Act seems to have been raised at any stage of the proceedings until the appeal was argued before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate on the basis of Section 32 of that Act, considered that the Tahsildar had not jurisdiction to try the case and held his proceedings to be void and cancelled his order. The learned District Magistrate has entirely misunderstood Section 32 of the Village Panchayats Act which applies only to suits. The provision applicable to criminal cases is Section 31. It is urged that technically this order amounts to an acquittal and therefore this Court should...
Musammat Masala Vs. Emperor Through Ramjag
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.870
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Magistrate of Basti on appeal from a conviction under Sections 352 and 426, Indian Penal Code. The case was instituted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who made it over to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar convicted the accused and sentenced them to payment of fine. No question of the application of the Village Panchayat Act seems to have been raised at any stage of the proceedings until the appeal was argued before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate on the basis of Section 32 of that Act considered that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to try the case and held his proceedings to be void and cancelled his order. The learned District Magistrate has entirely misunderstood Section 32 of the Village Panchayat Act which applies only to suits. The provision applicable to criminal cases is Section 31. It is urged that technically this order amounts to an acquittal and, therefore, this Court should ...
Wahid Ali Vs. Durga Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All343
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings. A preliminary decree for sale was passed on the 3rd of February 1920 against two judgment-debtors. Both these judgment-debtors appealed to the High Court. While their appeal in the High Court was pending a final decree was prepared by the Court below on the 3rd of September 1920. After this the High Court affirmed the preliminary decree passed by the Court below and dismissed the appeal on the 15th of December 1922. The decree further contained the following words;It is further ordered that the appellants aforesaid do pay the respondents aforesaid the sum of Rs. 727 the amount of costs incurred by the latter in the Court.2. The decree-holders have sought to execute their decree for costs against the judgment-debtors personally without adding them to the mortgage money in the first instance. The judgment-debtors objected to it, but their objection has been disallowed by the execution Court. T...
Mt. Champa Devi and anr. Vs. Pirbhu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All287
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision asking for further inquiry into a complainant of defamation under Section 500. I.P. C, which has been dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P.G. An application was made to the Sessions Judge who has rejected it. One Mt, Champa Devi filed a complaint charging Pirbhu Lal, Basdeo and Banarsi Das with offences under Sections 451 and 506, I.P.C. When asked for their answer to the charge they said that they could file a written statement. In the course of that written statement they made an imputation of unchastity against the complainant alleging that she had an illegal connexion with one Piare Lal and that the case had been instituted at the instigation of Piare Lal in consequence. That complaint was dismissed, and Mt. Champa Devi and Piare Lal then filed this complaint of defamation against Pirbhu Lal, Basdeo and Banarsi Das.2. The Deputy Magistrate made an inquiry under Section 202, Criminal P.C. He then dismissed the complainant partly on...
Rafi-uz-zaman Khan and ors. Vs. Chhotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All334
1. Criminal Appeals Nos-747, 748 and 749 of 1925 arise out of a communal raiyat which occurred in 1924 and as a result of the case arising out of the raiyat the prosecution of the present three appellants for giving false evidence was ordered. It is admitted by counsel for the appellants that the false statements, which each of these three appellants is alleged to have made, were all directed to giving the same, or at any rats, a very similar account of the manner in which a certain Muhammadan met his death at the hands of Hindus.2. The committing Magistrate decided to enquire into the case of all three separately and he eventually committed them for trial to the Sessions Court by three separate orders as in three distinct; cases. We think that in this, he was only conforming to what has been the usual practice, a practice which is to some extent well founded, so far as subordinate Courts within the jurisdiction of this Court are concerned, on at any rate, one decision of this Court, E...
Khacho Mal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All358
Daniels. J.1. This is a Reference by the learned Sessions Judge recommending the setting aside of the conviction of the applicants for assault under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, and a consequent order binding them over for a sum of Rs. 200 with one surety in the same amount under Section 108, Criminal P.C.2. On the substantive charge a fine of Rs. 20 only was inflicted. The complainant's case which the trial Court accepted was that owing to a report which the complainant had made against the accused three days earlier they came up behind him with lathis when he was on his bicycle, and said: 'See the result of making a report,' and ran after him and tried to strike him with their lathis, but being on a bicycle he managed to escape.3. The learned Sessions Judge has written an unnecessarily lengthy order containing some matter quite irrelevant to the present reference, but the grounds of his reference are really five in number:(1) That the provisions of Section 842, Criminal P.C., were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »