Allahabad Court August 1929 Judgments
Sultan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All19a
1. Sultan, Mohammad Baksh, Allah Baksh, Ismail, and Kala were committed to take their trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar under Section 366, I.P.C. Bundu was committed under Section 368 of the said Code. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted all of them and sentenced them to four years' rigorous imprisonment each.2. The first five accused persons were charged with the offence of kidnapping, Mt. Jamila, a girl, alleged to be under 16 years of age from the lawful guardianship of her father Mohammad Qazim with intent that she might be seduced to illicit intercourse. The offence is said to have been committed in mauza Khudda in the district of Muzaffarnagar on or about 5th May 1928.3. Bundu was charged with the offence of wrongfully concealing Mt. Jamila in his house at village Dadheru for nearly two months from 5th May 1928 with the knowledge that Mt. Jamila was a kidnapped girl.4. There was considerable social disparity between Mohammad Qazim and the accused, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Alayar Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All23
Sen, J.1. On 18th March 1929, Mr. Browne, the learned District Magistrate of Jalaun, directed that Alayar Khan, the applicant, should under Section 110, Criminal P.C. execute a bond for Rs. 2,000 with two sureties in Rs. 2,000 each to be of good behaviour for a term of one year. He appealed to the learned Sessions Judge who set aside the finding of the trial Court so far as it related to the charge under Section 110(d) but maintained the findings in other respects. The learned Sessions Judge observed that in view of the dangerous activities of the appellant in communal matters, he was not prepared to reduce the security. Alayar Khan has applied for revision to this Court.2. Alayar Khan is a man of considerable influence at Konch and is a member of the Municipal Board. The township of Konch is torn by factions. The necessary consequence is political differences and communal dissensions.3. Notice was issued to him to show cause as to why he should not be bound over inasmuch as:(1) he hab...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mohammad Israil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All24
1. Mohammad Israil was committed to the Court of Sessions to take his trial under Sections 380 and 467, I.P.C. The trial was held with the aid of a jury. The verdict of the jury was that Mohammad Israil was not guilty of theft under Section 380, I.P. C, but that he was guilty of forgery under Section 467, I.P. C, The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury in its entirety. In the result, he acquitted Mohammad Israil of the offence of theft but convicted him under Section 467, I.P. C, and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The order of the Sessions Judge has been challenged by the Local Government, which has preferred an appeal to this Court against the acquittal of Mohammad Israil on the charge of theft and by Mohammad Israil against his conviction under Section 467, 1.P.C.3. There is a firm of the name of Mohammad Sami Abdul Hakim at Allahabad, which held two hundis in due cour...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmohan Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All28
Young, J.1. This is an appeal by four persons against a conviction by the learned Officiating Sessions, Judge of Allahabad and a jury under Sections 330/34 and 384/34, I.P.C.2. The appellants were found guilty for voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession and money, and for house trespass. As this was a jury case, the appellants can only succeed if they can show that there has been any misdirection by the learned Judge to the jury which has in fact occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution story was that four Koals were seized by the accused, who were officials of the Manda estate, and that they were put to torture and beaten in order to make them confess that they had cut the barley produce of one Ram Partab. The defence evidence was that the whole story of the prosecution was mythical, and the defence called several witnesses to say that they had been present all the day in question with the accused and that no such thing took place.3. The points made by Mr. Iqbal Ah...
Tag this Judgment!imrat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All916
Sen, J.1. Surat, Jhabbu, Mukanda and Ghasi have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bijnor under Section 366-A, I.P.C., or in the alternative under Section 368 of the aforesaid Code and sentenced to two and half years' rigorous imprisonment each. Sarupa has been convicted tinder Section 366, I.P.C., and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. Of the persons convicted, two are chauhans by caste and the three are gadarias. The charge levelled against them is that they abducted one Mt. Herdei, a minor girl, under the age of 16 years from her father's house in mauza Noorullahpur and after a progress through several villages namely Shamspur, Sadaphal, Kaural they arrived in mauza Khardauni in the district of Meerut and gave the girl in marriage to one Durga.3. Mt. Herdei is a married girl. She is about 14 years old and her gauna ceremony has not been performed. The accused persons represented and induced the girl to represent that she was a chauhan girl. The prime mov...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All936
Sen, J.1. Upon certain applications being presented against one Kishan Prasad, Central Nazir of Bulandshahr, an enquiry was started by the learned District Judge in the course of which the appellant Raja Ram was examined on oath on 5th and 6th April 1929. The learned District Judge was of opinion that Raja Ram was guilty of deliberate perjury with respect to certain statements and notice was issued on 20th April 1929 to Raja Ram to show cause why his prosecution should not be directed. The order dated 20th April 1929 sets out the statements which were alleged to have been intentionally false.2. As Raja Ram appeared to be on leave the notice of the order dated 20th April could not be served on him. The finding of the learned District Judge is that Raja Ram was deliberately and designedly flouting the order of the Court and evading service. Upon the facts of the case, there can be no doubt that he was deliberately avoiding service.3. Raja Ram is a process server. He had behind him resour...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Bansi Dhar Vs. Brij Basi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All35
Sen, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri recommending that an order passed by Babu Ganga Prasad, Magistrate, First Class, on 15th January 1929, be vacated and that the said Magistrate be directed under Section 517, Criminal P.C., to recover a key from the possession of Brij Basi Lal and make over the same to Lala Bansidhar. 2. There is a house at Shikohabad which was in the occupation of Mr. Radha Kishun, pleader. Radha Kishun died in 1908.3. It is alleged that one Govind Prasad was the owner of this house and that he had let out the same to one Mulua. It is further alleged that Mulua had continued in possession of this house on behalf of Govind Prasad between the years 1908 and 1920.4. Trouble began in 1924 when Govind Prasad applied to the Mainpuri police to be put into possession of this house, inasmuch as the tenant Mulua had disappeared from the scene and had locked up the house. The police appeared to have put Govind Prasad into possession of this h...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan DIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All935
Sen, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of Pandit Rup Kishan Aga, Additional Sessions Judge of Allahabad, upholding the conviction and sentence of Bhagwan Din, applicant, under Sections 221 and 384, I.P.C. The applicant was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 221, and to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 384, I.P.C.2. On 7th February 1929, one Ramana Pasi was caught flagrante in dilicto while stealing sarson from the field of one Pancham in Khuda Buksh ka purwa. He was apprehended by Mangal Das and Bhagwan Din, Bhagwan Din is chowkidar of Singraur and Khuda Buksh ka purwa is outside his circle.3. Beni Madho Bhat is chowkidar of Khuda Buksh ka purwa and figures as complainant in this case.4. Only a few handfuls of sarson appear to have been stolen and Ramana, when caught, was found in possession of a few wisps of sarson stalks. Bhagwan Din chowkidar detained Ramana Pasi for the whole night after his arrest at the house of one Nanku...
Tag this Judgment!Man Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All928; 121Ind.Cas.103
Sen, J.1. Man Singh, Kishori Lal, Balbhaddar Singh, Halke Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Kanhai Singh have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore for an offence punishable under Section 396, I.P.C. and sentenced to eight years' rigorous imprisonment each.2. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Munian Singh, Sheonath Singh, Babu Singh and Sheonarain Singh.3. It is proved beyond ail reasonable doubt that on 9th May 1928, a highway dacoity of a very serious magnitude was committed at or near Banar Alipur which is in the jurisdiction of the police station of Akbarpur. In the beginning of May, a cattle fair was held at Gajnair and a large number of people had congregated to see the fair and to vend their cattle. On 9th May 1928, sometime towards the evening, as a band of persons numbered 30 and 32 were returning from the fair and were on their way towards Akbarpur about nine miles from Gajnair, they were suddenly assaulted by a party of dacoits. Fourteen persons wer...
Tag this Judgment!Hukum Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All92
Sen, J.1. The facts of the case which have given rise to this application for revision are that, on 7th August 1928, Mt. Champavati and one Bahori Lal instituted a complaint under Sections 417 and 406, I.P.C., in the Court of a Special Magistrate with second class powers. The District Magistrate of Etah transferred the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kasganj. The latter, in his turn, transferred the case to Mr. Saved Ghayoor Ahmad, Magistrate, First Class.2. Mt. Champavati is the widow of a predeceased brother of Bahori Lal. Both her husband and Bahori Lal were in the railway service. After the death of her husband, Mt. Champavati received a considerable sum of money from the railway authorities on account of the provident fund of her deceased husband. Bahori Lal also received a large sum of money from the railway on his own account as his share of the provident fund. It is common ground that Mt. Champavati and Bahori Lal occupied the same house and Bahori Lal may well be take...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »