Allahabad Court July 1929 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.
Mohammad Yusuf and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All901
Sen, J.1. Mohammad Yusuf, Hafiz Bachchan and Aminuddin were convicted by the City Magistrate of Benares under Section 262, Municipalities Act (Act 2 of 1916) and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2 each and in default to one day's simple imprisonment. The applicants moved the learned Sessions Judge of Benares in revision upon the ground that the sentences and findings were bad in law and ultra vires and that the prosecution of the petitioners without the permission of the Municipal Board was null and void under the law.2. The learned Sessions Judge considered that the plea advanced by the petitioners was well founded and referred the case to this Court with a recommendation that the conviction and sentence be set aside.3. Section 314, Municipalities Act, contains the following provision:Unless otherwise expressly provided, no Court shall take cognizance of any offences punishable under this Act (whereof a list is given in Sch. 8 for the purpose merely of easier reference) or any rule or bye-l...
Faqira Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All901a
Sen, J.1. Faqira is a Chamar by caste and is a resident of village Olri in the District of Saharanpur. He was convicted by Mr. Rajendra Narain, Magistrate, First Class, under Section 60(a), United Provinces Excise Act (Local Act 4 of 1910) and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal has affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 10 Faqira challenges the legality and propriety of the conviction by the Courts below and comes up before this Court in revision.2. The date of the occurrence was 24th March 1929, which by a curious coincidence happened to be the day of the Holi celebration. On that day men of the caste and the class to which Faqira belongs notoriously indulge in strong drinks.3. Mr. Abdul Rauf Khan, Sub-Inspector of Bargaon Police Station having received an information that Faqira was in possession of illicit liquor raided his house. Two bottles containing some liquid were discovered under a pulla in the cou...
Phul Chand Dube Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All917
Sen, J.1. Phul Chand Dube has been convicted by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 411, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. He appealed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ghazipur. Phul Chand Dube comes up before this Court with an application for revision and challenges the propriety of the conviction and sentence.2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and may be briefly outlined here. One Sahodar Patakh of the district of Chapra owned a bullock. His bullock was missing. This bullock, after several months, was traced in the possession of Phul Chand Dube, the applicant. The bullock was taken possession of by the police and Phul Chand Dube was prosecuted under Section 411. I.P.C., with the result which has been indicated above.3. The learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not appear to have approached the case from the proper angle and I am not surprised that they...
Jageshar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All932
Sen, J.1. A complaint was instituted on 16th March 1929 by one Jageshar Chamar under Section 323 and 426, Penal Code and Section 24, Act 1 of 1871 against Umar Khan, Muhabat Khan and Talib Khan in the Court of Munshi Nazir Ahmad Abbasi a Deputy Magistrate with First Class powers. Mr. Abbasi is a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the district of Mirzapur. On the very day that the complaint was instituted, he transferred the case to Mr. Lakshmi Chand Raizada, a Special Magistrate with Third Class powers for the disposal of the case. The complaint was registered in the Court of the Special Magistrate on 2nd April 1929. The complainant and his witnesses were examined on 16th and 24th April 1929. The accused were represented by counsel. The accused had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and they fully and freely availed themselves of this opportunity. In the course of the cross-examination no attempt whatsoever was made by the accused to put any question either to ...
Parbhu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All914a
Sen, J.1. Parbhoo has been convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class, under his judgment, dated 16th February 1929, for an offence under Section 325, I.P.C., and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30 or one month's further rigorous imprisonment in default of the payment of fine. He had two confederates in Imam Uddin and Siraj Uddin who were convicted under Section 323, I.P.C., and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment each. The case of these two is not before me.2. Mahadeo, the complainant, is a servant of the zemindar of Rangpura. He found some cattle and goats belonging to the employees of the Phaphamau railway station grazing in the field of his master. He was driving off the cattle to the pound-house and when he got near the level crossing, Parbhoo Kahar the applicant, who is the Hindu water carrier at the Phaphamau railway station attacked Mahadeo, gave him a good thrashing, took one of the fingers in his mouth and bit the top joint complet...
Ram Sundar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All904
Sen, J.1. Ram Sundar was convicted under Sections 379 and 426., I.P.C., by a Special Magistrate of Mirzapur and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 4 under Section 426 I.P.C.2. The charge against the accused was that he with certain confederates had stolen a male goat belonging to Sukhdeo and had killed it.3. The charge was framed against the accused on 21st February 1929. On that date the Magistrate did not ask the accused if he wished to cross-examine any of the witnesses for the prosecution who had already been examined.4. It was argued before the learned District Magistrate on appeal that the provisions of Section 256, Criminal P.C., were mandatory, that the said provisions had not been complied with and that this was a defect which vitiated the trial.5. The learned District Magistrate did not accede to this contention on the ground that no authorities were cited before him. There are two reported decisions of this Court which deal with the provision...
Rure Mal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All937
Sen, J.1. Rure Mal and Buland Rai were convicted by Mr. Ali Husan Khan, Magistrate First Class of Meerut, under Sections 3 and 4, Public Gambling Act (Act 3 of 1867). The Magistrate sentenced the two accused persons to a fine of Rs. 100 each under Section 3 of the Act, or in default to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment and a further fine Rs. 100 each under Section 4, or in default to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. There was a third man Tara Chand, who was also convicted by the Magistrate, but his case is not before this Court. Under the evidence on the record there can be no manner of doubt that the two applicants were keeping a public gambling den with the object of gambling therein with other persons. In order to prevent any possibility that the nefarious transaction carried on days in and days out in the gambling den at Baraut be discovered, the instruments of gaming resorted to and adopted in the present case were ingenious and extremely original. They mostly co...
The Kayastha Company Limited in Liquidation Through B. NaraIn Pershad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.17
Sulaiman, A.C.J.1. The facts of this case are fully mentioned in the order of refer once. It is not necessary to recite them.2. In the course of argument besides the point referred other points have also been raised, for instance that if an order for execution has once been passed on an application for execution without objection as to its being time-barred it would not save limitation for purposes of a subsequent application. It has also been suggested that inasmuch as a notice was issued under Order XXI, Rule 22 on the 1st of February, 1922, the case was covered by Article 182, Sub-clause (6) and there was no necessity whatsoever to enquire into the bona fides of the application for execution. It has been further sought to be argued that steps taken by an attaching creditor to execute her decree would not justify the exclusion of time for the purposes of this application. These are matters which have not been referred to us and I do not wish to be understood that I am expressing any ...
Ram Jas Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Harakh Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All305
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the lands mentioned in the plaint are owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the defendants have no longer any connexion with them and in the alternative for the dispossession of the defendants. The defendants pleaded that they were the tenants of the plaintiffs and therefore the Court of first instance referred the issue to the revenue Court under Section 273, Agra, Tenancy Act. The revenue Court did not go into the question of fact on the merits but held that it was bound by a previous decision of the revenue Court dated 4th February 1925 which had been affirmed on appeal and therefore returned the finding that the defendants were the tenants of the plaintiffs. The learned Munsiff was bound to accept that finding and dismissed the suit. On appeal the lower appellate Court has taken a contrary view and come to the conclusion that the revenue Court ought to have decided the case on the merits an...
Mohammad Unis Vs. Janeshar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All881; 122Ind.Cas.754
1. The learned Judge does not appear to have applied his mind to the facts of this case and to have dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtors quite wrongly. In the application for execution itself it was admitted that under the decree annual instalments have to be paid by 31st July every year and in case of non-payment of two consecutive instalments the interest was to be chargeable and the entire decretal amount was to become payable. There is not a word in the judgment of the learned Judge to suggest that he had in his mind the idea that there ought to be a default in the payment of two consecutive instalments. The whole order is based on the supposition that there was a default because the instalment was not paid on 31st July 1923, but was accepted by the treasury on 1st August 1923. What happened on that date was that the judgment-debtors went to the treasury officer with the money and asked him to deposit it. The treasury officer wrote on the tender that on that day the trea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »