Allahabad Court October 1928 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.
Prem NaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All82; 113Ind.Cas.765
Sulaiman, J.1. There can be no doubt as to the facts of this case. The statement of Captain Tobit alone fixes the complicity of the accused. The evidence fully establishes that the accused brought over Mt. Jugia and kept her in his quarters, alleging that she was his wife. The medical evidence, coupled with the statement of the girl's father, establishes that she is under 16 years of age. There is no reason to suppose that the accused believed that she was over 16. Even if he did, that would be no valid defence to the charge. If it now turns out that she was under 16 years of age, the accused, even if he honestly believed her to be over 16, cannot protect himself as he must be deemed to have acted at his peril.2. The learned Sessions Judge has quoted the opinion of a living commentator to the effect that where a man had illicit connexion with a girl before she was kidnapped, it would not be said that he kidnapped her with intent to seduce her to illicit intercourse. The learned Judge h...
Emperor Vs. Angad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All69; 117Ind.Cas.822
1. The point raised in this appeal is concluded by authority. The learned Judge was of opinion that sanction of the District Magistrate was necessary to the prosecution of a person under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act (11 of 1878) for possessing arms without a license in the District of Aligarh. His attention was not called, it appears to the judgment of Daniels, J., in Amir Ahmad v. Emperor : AIR1926All143 which was subsequently followed by a Bench of two Judges in this Court in Emperor v. Abdul Ghafur : AIR1929All68 . The learned Judge has missed the point that the District of Aligarh was a locality to which Section 32, Clause (2), Act 31 of 1860, applied on the date in 1878 on which the Arms Act came into operation. Clause (2), Section 32, Act 31 of 1860 enacts as follows:In every such province, district or place in which an order for a general search for arms has been issued and is still in operation under Act 28 of 1857, it shall not be lawful for any person to have in his possessi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›