Allahabad Court August 1926 Judgments
Bal Chand and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All90
Banerji, J.1. This is an application by three persons under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that their commitment to the Court of Session for offences punishable under Sections 120 B and 457 read with Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has taken three main points in this case:(1) that the pardon that was tendered to Kapur Chand was illegal:(2) that the offence with which the accused are charged does not fall within the definition of house-breaking; and(3) that there was no evidence to warrant the accused being committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial2. As regards the first point urged, Mr. O'Neill on behalf of the petitioners says that as the Magistrate had, upon the application of three out of the five accused persons, postponed the case he had become functus officio, and therefore, could not under the provisions of Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure tender pardon to Kapur Chand. He ha...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All112
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by two men who are a Girdawar and a Sazawal, of the Agori Barhar Estate in the District of Mirzapur. The complainant Deoraj and the Barhar Estate have been at loggerheads, it seems, for some time and the Estate ejected Deoraj successfully from some plots of land which were given to a man of the name of Shiam Das, a defence witness in this case. The case of Deoraj is that 200 men belonging to the Barhar Estate collected together and surrounded his house and thereafter went and cut three bunds in which water had been collected and which bunds, had been put up by the father and grandfather of Deoraj for the purpose of cultivating his fields only; that by the action of the accused and the other 198 man the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 5,000. This is the complaint which I am asked to accept as correct in every particular by the learned vakil who appears for the complainant to support the order of the Magistrate. The Magistrate, however,...
Tag this Judgment!Achhut Rai and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All75
Banerji, J.1. Achhut Rai and Badri Rai have appealed against their conviction under Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge of murder was framed against these men. The learned Judge acquitted them of the charge of murder but went on to say:In my opinion, however, Achhut Rai and Badri Rai are guilty of fabricating further injuries immediately after death on the dead body of Nandlal Rai with lathis and gandasa in order to accuse their enemies of a capital offence.2. He has convicted Achhut Rai and Badri Rai and sentenced them to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. Objection is taken by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there being no sanction, complaint or charge against his clients charging them of an offence under Section 194 they could not be convicted of that offence without a substantive charge against them. I am of opinion that when a man is charged with an offence punishable under. Section 302 he cannot, without a charge; being framed against him, be convicted...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Das Vs. Jaisri Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All99
Benerji, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of a first Class Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code., The proceeding started on the complaint of one Jaisri Das against the present applicant. In this complaint it was alleged that the complainant Jaisri Das was in possession of a plot No. 116, situated in village Bilaspur and had sown a crop in it but the opposite-party the present applicant-wanted to cut the crop by force and it was therefore prayed that the crop should be ordered to be cut under police supervision and should then be handed over to the complainant. The learned Magistrate, before whom this complaint was filed, on the 3rd of November 1925, called for a report from the police as whether there was any likelihood of a breach of the peace. In accordance with this order the police made an enquiry and submitted a report on the 16th of November 1925, from which it appeared that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. But...
Tag this Judgment!Budh Singh and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All111
ORDERBanerji, J.1. Budh Singh And Ganga Singh have been convicted by Babu Murari Lal, Magistrate first Class, Etawah, under Section 176, I.P.C., and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of2. The facts on which the applicants have been convicted, as appears from the judgment of the lower Court, are that they are zamindars of village Dadra and that they have, been realizing more than the recorded rent from their tenants for a long time without giving any information about it to the officials concerned. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that the applicants omitted to perform a legal obligation by intentionally withholding the information. The applicants in revision have set forth several grounds on which they impugn the judgment of the lower Court, but the only point argued before me is that the facts as found by the Magistrate do not' constitute an offence under Section 176, Indian P.C. I think the ground taken by the applicants is correct in law. 3. Looking to Section 46 of...
Tag this Judgment!DIn Mohammad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All107
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore passed on appeal. A complaint was filed by the petitioner Din Mohammad charging Rup Ram with an offence under Section 417, Indian Penal Code. Rup Ram is an employee of the Cantonment and it was said in the complaint by Din Mohammad that he had taken Rs. 5 from Din Mohammad for permitting him to cut a tree, and demanded some more money. The learned Joint Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed questioned the complainant. He, in his order of 19th February 1926, said:Complainant would be better advised to approach Executive Officer, Cantonment. It does not seem to be a case of 417.and he then dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal P.C., without giving an opportunity to Din Mohammad to prove his complaint by calling the witnesses whom he had named in the complaint.' The Joint Magistrate was certainly empowered to do so, in my opinion, under Section 203, Criminal P.C., and...
Tag this Judgment!Saldeo and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All101
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by a First Class Magistrate convicting the three applicants under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing Saldeo to a fine of Rs. 50 and the other two applicants to a fine of Rs. 25 each or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment For two weeks.2. The case for the prosecution is that Jabooran Ahir, complainant, resident of village Kotwa, went to see his gram field on the morning of 11th February 1926, and found that about eight bundies of gram plants worth Rs. 4 were uprooted and stolen away. He began to trace out the theft and found that gram plants were lying scattered in the way up to the house of the accused which was situate in the same village. He found some ten plants of his field lying at the door of the accused which he picked up and was taking them to Kotwali Azamgarh to make a report but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate happened to be in his village at about 9 a.m. and he reported we facts to hi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›