Allahabad Court August 1925 Judgments
Ram Sarup Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All122
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The applicant Ram Sarup applied to the Municipal Board of Hathras to extend his chabutra by two feet in an almost triangular line so as to make the new chabutra and the old chabutra form a rectangle. He also mentioned that he may be granted permission to put a stone on the drain to serve as a step for getting on to the chabutra. The map attached to the application explains the position and the form in which the new chabutra was to be built. This sanction was granted. At the time the application for sanction was made, it was not mentioned that the new chabutra would rest on stone brackets. The applicant is now being prosecuted for having put up stone brackets to support the new chabutra, for the construction of which the Municipality had already granted its sanction. A chabutra can only rest on earth or on pillars or on brackets, and as the sanction did not limit the discretion of Ram Sarup to build it in any particular form, it was open to him to erect stone brackets...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Ram Sarup Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.426
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The applicant Ram Sarup applied to the Municipal Board of Hathras to extend his chabutra by two feet in an almost triangular line so as to make the new chabutra and the old chabutra form a rectangle. He also mentioned that he may be granted permission to put a stone on the drain to serve as a stop for getting on to the chabutra. The map attached to the application explains the position and the form in which the new chabutra was to be built. This sanction was granted. At the time the application for sanction was made, it was not mentioned that the new chabutra would rest on stone brackets. The applicant is now being prosecuted for having put up stone brackets to support the new chabutra, for the construction of which the Municipality had already granted its sanction. A chabutra can only rest on earth or on pillars or on brackets, and as the sanction did not limit the discretion of Ram Sarup to build it in any particular form, it was open to him to erect stone brackets...
Tag this Judgment!Munir Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All189
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The accused Munir has been convicted of offences under Sections 494 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced on each charge to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences are concurrent. The case is somewhat unfortunate. Mt. Ganga Kuar was the wife of Har Gobind. She was married about 5 or 6 years ago, when she was a minor. She was brought by her husband to his house in Ghanshiampur. He did not thereafter allow her to go to the house of her parents, because it is said, her parents had not paid the dowry, which had been settled for the marriage. The accused was in the service of Har Gobind and his duty was to act as chaukidar and keep watch outside his house. On the night of the 30th of October 1922, Har Gobind was away from his house. When he came back he found his wife, Mt. Ganga Kuar, not in the house; and his servant Munir was also absent. He made a report at the Powayan police station next morning that his wife was missing and that she had bean entice...
Tag this Judgment!Kadhori Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All193
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. Alongside a small public lane Kadhori has a house, and opposite that house stands the house of Mata Din. The house of Mata Din had a chabutra in front of it which he is said to have extended. Kadhori has also built a shop, which, according to his allegation, was built in the place of an old chapper and according to Mata Din on the land forming part of the lane or pathway. The effect of these two constructions, it is stated, was that the land was considerably narrowed. The trying Magistrate found that both these constructions were encroachments newly made on the land and directed both of them to be removed. The evidence produced by Kadhori to show that he had built the shop on the site of an old chapper appears to have been disbelieved. Certain panches were asked by the Magistrate to make a local investigation and their report was that the shop had been newly built on land which formed a part of the lane or public pathway. The Magistrate examined Tewari Sheocharan Lal...
Tag this Judgment!Kadhori Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.452
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. Alongside a small public lane Kadhori has a house, and opposite that house stands the house of Mata Din. The house of Mata Din had a chabutra in front of it which he is said to have extended. Kadhori has also built a shop, which, according to his allegation, was built in the place of an old chapper, and according to Mata Din on the land forming part of the lane or pathway. The effect of these two constructions, it is stated, was that the lane was considerably narrowed. The Trying Magistrate found that both these constructions were encroachments newly made on the land and directed both of them to be removed. The evidence produced by Kadhori to show that he had built the shop on the site of an old chapper appears to have been disbelieved. Certain panches were asked by the Magistrate to make a local investigation and their report was that the shop had been newly built on land which formed a part of the lane or public pathway. The Magistrate examined Tewari Sheocharan La...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hafiz Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All188; 92Ind.Cas.441
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The accused, Abdul Hafiz Khan, was found in possession of one ounce of cocaine lying-in a trunk, inside his house. He has been convicted under Section 60(a) of the U.P. Excise Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight months and a fine of Rs. 500. It appears that the Excise Inspector received information that certain men had come from Rampur and were engaged in selling cocaine at Cawnpore. The accused is a resident of Rampur and is now living at Cawnpore. When the Excise Inspector received the above information, he, arranged that 50 ounces of cocaine should be purchased at Rs. 65 per ounce by the informer. He had completed the arrangement for its purchase and was trying to arrange for the price when, on the 19th April he received further information that one of his informers had divulged that information to the smugglers and that they were leaving the shop on the Latouche Road which was in their occupation. He, therefore hurried to the house and the shop o...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All141
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The applicant Kashi Prasad brought a complaint against the opposite party which was found to be false and brought on account of enmity. The learned Trying Magistrate ordered the accused to pay Rs. 50 as compensation. The contention here is that no such compensation can be awarded unless the complaint is shown to be frivolous and vexatious, and reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Ram Singh v. Mathura (1912) 34 All 354. That case was however decided under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. The alteration since made covers a case where the complaint is shown to have been false and either frivolous or vexatious. The complaint in the present instance has been found to have been false and brought on account of enmity, and Section 250, Criminal P.C., justified the Magistrate in awarding compensation under the circumstances. The application is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Kashi Prasad Vs. Emperor Through Ram Sunder
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.588
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The applicant Kashi Prasad brought a complaint against the opposite party which was found to be false and brought on account of enmity. The learned Trying Magistrate ordered the accused to pay Rs. 50 as compensation. The contention here is that no such compensation can be awarded unless the complaint is shown to be frivolous and vexatious, and reliance is placed on the' decision in the case of Ram Singh v. Mathura 14 Ind. Cas. 599 : 31 A. 351 : 9 A.L.J. 308 : 13 Cr. L.J. 247. That case was, however, decided under the old Cr.P.C. The alteration since made covers a case where the complaint is shown to have been false and either frivolous or vexatious. The complaint in the present instance has been found to have been false and brought on account of enmity, and Section 250 of the Cr.P.C. justified the Magistrate in awarding compensation under the circumstances. The application is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Daud Khan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All673
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The accused Daud Khan and Sharf Uddin have been convicted of an offence under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 100 each. It appears that one Musammat Aziman was indebted to Nanhu Khan and that when she died Nanhu Khan brought a suit against Daud Khan, alleging that he was the successor of the deceased and claiming the money due by her from the assets left by her at the time of her deathi which were stated to be in his possession. The assets consisted of a house situated in the village Jagatpur. In that suit Daud Khan pleaded that Alauddin was the heir of Musammat Aziman and that he had been unnecessarily impleaded. It was ascertained on enquiry that Alauddin was missing from about eight years and the suit was decreed against the assets of Musammat Aziman in the hands of Daud Khan.2. Nanhu Khan subsequently sold his decree to Mahoob Khan who found that Daud Khan and his son Sharf Uddin bad re...
Tag this Judgment!Khamani and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All306; 92Ind.Cas.584
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The applicants have been convicted of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51 each or in default simple imprisonment for four months. It appears that there was a procession taken out at Bareilly in November last in which various classes of people including some sweepers had joined. One of the persons who joined the procession was Mangli Prasad who belonged to the Bhurji caste. The three petitioners have been found to have told different persons of the same caste that if they associated with Mangli Prasad they would refuse to smoke or drink with them as Mangli Prasad had become a sweeper, by reason of his having shaken hands and associated with sweepers in that procession. It is argued here that the trial Court had no jurisdiction, and that the three accused ought not to have been jointly tried, but none of these points were taken in the Courts below. If there were any substance in these objections, they would, undou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›