Allahabad Court September 1926 Judgments
DIn Dayal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All146
Banerji, J.1. Din Dayal has been bound over to be of good behaviour for three years, and the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri has confirmed the order. Din Dayal has come up in revision against that order. Although it is not the practice in revisions to look into the evidence in cases, specially in cases under Section 110 of the Criminal P. C., I am of opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases in which the opinion of the Sessions Judge that the man is a habitual thief and robber and a most dangerous character and that he possesses that reputation in his vicinity, cannot be accepted. The case shows the danger of assuming too much because I find that only one witness has come from the village where Din Dayal lives to give him a bad character, and he is Tej Singh, Mukhia, but Tej Singh's evidence really does not prove anything legally against the petitioner Din Dayal. The learned Sessions Judge has assumed that the deficiency of witnesses from the village of the accused on beha...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All479
1. This is a criminal ap-peal from a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been charged with the offence of murdering his wife Mt. Gobardhani For the last three years or so there had been an illegal intimacy between the accused's wife and a shopkeeper named Masna. The brothers of the accused disliked this, and when the intrigue was not stopped they separated their part of the house by means of a partition wall a few months before the occurrence. Some complaint had been filed by Masna's father in a criminal Court, and the 3rd of June 1926, was, fixed for its hearing. Masna came) over and asked the accused to give evidence on behalf of his father. The accused declined to do so. His wife Mt; Gorbardhani also tried to persuade him to give evidence, but he persisted in refusing to go to Court. Mt. Gobardhani, however,, herself offered to give evidence on behalf of her paramour's father. One can imagine that the accused would not have liked this idea. The pro...
Tag this Judgment!Pt. Ram Saroop Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All97
1. Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 185 and 186 are connected and are applications for bail together with a prayer for stay of proceedings. It appears that the two applicants appeared before election commissioners and gave evidence. The commissioners came to the conclusion that they were respectively guilty of forgery and perjury, and started proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court in revision held that Court not being a civil, revenue or criminal Court, had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 476, but that there was nothing to prevent the commissioners from filing a complaint. Their report to the criminal Court was treated as a complaint. The applicants were accordingly prosecuted, but acquitted by the trying Magistrate. On appeal by the Government to this Court, the Bench hearing the appeal came to the conclusion that the acquittal was improper and that the accused persons were guilty. The appeal was accordingly allowed and they were ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›