Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All8
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun asking this Court to set aside the convictions of Babu Ram and Bhim Singh under Section 160, I. P.C., and the sentences of fines of Rs. 75 and Rs. 25 respectively. The sole ground for the recommendation is expressed as follows:But I am doubtful whether on the facts stated the conviction under Section 160, I. P.C., is justified. The offence of 'affray' is committed when two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace. There must not only be a disturbance of the public peace; there must also be a fight, and the fight must be between two or more persons. By this I understand that there must be at least one person fighting on each side. In the present case Kali Das was acquitted of an offence under Section 160, I. P.C., on the ground that 'he took no part in the affray.' He did no fighting at all. He was merely dragged out of his shop and beaten. If this was the case we are left with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All17
ORDERKing, J. 1. One Kifayatullah Khan was Convicted under Section 19 (f), Arms Act of 1878, for being in possession of 340 patakhas without a licence. The learned Sessions Judge recommends that the conviction be quashed.2. The patakhas are ' l 1/2 to 2' in diameter. They contain a very small quantity of chlorate of potassium mixed with sulphide of arsenic, together with small pieces of kankar, wrapped, and rolled in several layers of paper so as to form a small ball. When thrown on the ground they explode with a report. These patakhas or crackers are customarily used by children at the time of shabarat just as crackers of a rather different kind are . generally associated with Christmas festivities. Hitherto no licence has been required even for their sale, much less for their possession, probably because they are regarded as mere playthings. They are said to be sold at the rate of 8 for one pice.3. It seems prima facie astonishing that such insignificant crackers could be regarded as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All13
ORDER1. These are three applications for enahancement of sentence filed on behalf of a complainant, Man Singh. The various accused persons, Reoti, Bharat Singh and Roshan Singh, have been convicted under Section 193, I.P.C. of giving false evidence against Man Singh on a charge of Section 224 I. P.C. which was brought by Reoti against Man Singh and Reoti has also been convicted under Section 211, I.P.C. The convictions were in the Court of a Magistrate on the complaint of a Sessions Judge and they were upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge. The sentences of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment on Reoti and 4 months' rigorous imprisonment each on Bharat Singh and Rosham Singh were reduced by the Sessions Court to the period of imprisonment already undergone, which was 23 days. There was a trial of Man Singh and his son under Section 324, I. P.C. for causing the death of a woman, Mt. Rajo, and Man Singh was acquitted by the Sessions Court and Debi was acquitted by the High Court on appeal.2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All258
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of 13 persons, who have been convicted under Sections 465 and 471, I. P.C., and sentenced by a Magistrate to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The facts of the case as set forth in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge are as follows. There was a partition case of the village of Kairi in Banda District begun in the year 1909. These proceedings went on until 1918 when the Board of Revenue rejected the application for partition on the ground that the village was 'khetwat.' Some years later in 1923 some of the cosharers applied to the Collector and suggested that the partition proposed in 1909, which had apparently proceeded as far as the preparation of khurras, should be recorded as it stood in the papers by treating it as an application for partition made on agreement. On 17th March 1924 the cosharers of the village were summoned to Court and asked to file an agreement to the effect that they had made a partition of this vil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All51
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference in revision made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Benares, recommending that the conviction and sentence in a summary trial of Sunder Teli before a Magistrate should be quashed and that another Magistrate should be ordered to re-try the case after framing proper charges. Probably the Additional Sessions Judge did not mean that the charges should be framed before the case was tried but that charges should be framed at the normal period after hearing the prosecution evidence. The facts in this case are that Mahomad Khan made a report in the thana to the effect that the following property had been stolen from his shop:Six bags of salt valued at - 43 0 0One bag of chokar - 2 12 6Money amounting to - 5 8 02. The total property alleged to have been taken is therefore worth Rs. 51-4-6. If this case had been tried on a complaint made by Mahomad Khan in Court, it is clear that it could not have been tried summarily, and three rulings produced by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All257
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of one Abdul Shakur, a clerk in the General Post Office, Agra, against an order of a Magistrate directing that an encroachment on a public road in Tundla made by the applicant should be removed. The history of this proceeding is that the District Board made an application to the Magistrate alleging that there was this encroachment by building a shop, etc. on the public road which was in the charge of the District Board. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the duty of the Magistrate, on receiving this information, was to take evidence and to come to a finding on the question of whether the encroachment was made on the public road or not. It is argued that this duty is imposed on the Magistrate by Section 133 (1), paras 1 and 2, Criminal P.C. But I consider that the expression 'on taking such evidence, if any, as he thinks fit' does not make it incumbent on the Magistrate to hold such an inquiry. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All818; 129Ind.Cas.369
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur against the order of commitment by a Magistrate, committing Gaya Teli for trial under Section 211, I.P.C. The accused Gaya Teli made a report in the thana against Gopal Singh and other persons of having murdered his father Krishna. The police found that report was false, and no proceedings in Court were instituted on it. The commitment order states that as the report relates to a capital offence so the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the Magistrate accordingly commits the accused to the Court of Sessions. It has been held by this Court in Emperor v. Jagmohan [1909] 11 Cr. L.J. 54 that:where the offence under Section 211, I.P.C., consists in giving false information to the police and the case does not go further than a police inquiry the offence falls within para. 1, Section 211, I.P.C., and not within para. 2 even though the charge made in the report is one of murder. An offence un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All10; 129Ind.Cas.257
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by six persons against their convictions under Section 323, I.P.C., and 379, I.P.C., and the abetment of Section 379, I.P.C., and fines of Rs. 25 each imposed by the Magistrate which were reduced to fines of Rs. 10 each by the 1st Class Magistrate who heard the appeal. The name of another person, Sarabjit, appears as an applicant for revision, but this Has been entered by a mistake, as Sarabjit was not one of the persons on trial before the Tahsildar or convicted by him. The facts as found are that Anrudh Rai, the complainant, alleged that on the evening of 7th October 1929 he found the three accused 'Ahirs,' Ram Dhayan, Bhirgunath and Ramjanam stealthily cutting his crop, and he caught Ram Dhayan Ahir, and there was a struggle and the other three 'Bhuinhar' accused came up and told the complainant to release Ram Dhayan and the complainant refused and all the accused then beat the complainant and kicked him and rescued Ram Dhayan. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All14
Bennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares recommending that the order passed under Section 147, Criminal P.C. by a Magistrate should be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge gives three grounds under which he considers the order was invalid. The first ground was that no service of a copy of the preliminary order was made on the applicants in revision. The magistrate in his explanation points out that a copy of the preliminary order was served on the two applicants in revision and it is admitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that this is correct. The second ground is that the Magistrate relied on a police report without having that report proved by the police officer who made it. The learned Sessions Judge is apparently unaware of the procedure under Section 147, Criminal P.C. Section 147 (1) lays down that whenever a Magistrate is satisfied from a police report or from information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All820
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision filed on behalf of three persons, Sheo Pratap Singh, Gaja and Baram Din Singh, who have been convicted by a Magistrate under Section 353, 1. P.C., and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment each and fines of Rs. 100, Rs. 20 and Rs. 25 respectively. An appeal was made to the learned Sessions Judge and dismissed by him, and the application in revision is directed against that appeal. In revision grounds 1 and 3 have been argued. Ground 1 alleges thatthe conviction of the applicants is wholly void and illegal inasmuch as the learned Magistrate omitted to inform the applicants under Section 191, Criminal P.C., of their right to have the case tried by another Court.2. This argument assumes chat the Magistrate acted under Section 190(1)(c). The record shows that the Magistrate issued process on receiving a writing from the Tahsildar forwarding a writing from the amin, who stated that the accused had assaulted him in discharge of his du...
Tag this Judgment!