Allahabad Court August 1931 Judgments
Balkrishna Sharma Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All125; 137Ind.Cas.636
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the District Magistrate of Cawnpore directing that the defence should select three witnesses out of Nos. 1 to 10 and 8 other witnesses out of the remaining lists. The case pending before him is one under Section 124-A, I.P.C.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies because the applicant has not approached the Sessions Judge in the first instance. No doubt it is the general practice of this Court not to entertain a revision when the applicant could have gone to the superior Court of the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. But of course, even a settled practice does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, In Mannu v. Emperor [1920] 20 Cr. L.J. 705 and Emperor v. Mansur Husain [1919] 41 All. 587, Piggott, J., referred to this practice and yet entertained the revisions. In the case Sharif Ahmad v. Qabul Singh A.I.R. 1921 All. 30, a Division Bench in clear terms, declared that there was this prac...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Chanchal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All70
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order convicting the accused under Section 299, U.P. Municipalities Act, for having committed a breach of a Municipal by-law. On 13th July 1925, the Municipal Board of Hathras got a notification published in the Government Gazette under which the following bylaw, among others, was announced:No public prostitute shall reside within the areas or in the streets specified below, provided that public prostitutes who at the end o March 1925, owned and resided in houses and streets in areas mentioned below may continue to reside in those houses.2. Then followed a list of no less than 13 items containing roads, bazaars, abadi, lanes, etc. The by-law was expressly not made applicable to public prostitutes who had owned and resided in houses and streets in the areas mentioned at the end of March 1925. It was intended to apply to newcomers only.3. This notification was replaced by another notification of 27th April 1927, which contain...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Yakub and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All73
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is a revision from convictions under Section 120-B, I.P.C., and Section 60(a), Excise Act.2. The facts have been found by both the Courts below and there can be no dispute about them in revision. The prosecution case was that the applicants Md. Yakub and Abdul Shakur, who are residents of Delhi, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the applicant Saddu Beg, and, one Md. Ishaq, residents of Saharanpur, for the supply of cocaine from Delhi to Saharanpur, in order to be sold at the latter place. There can be no doubt that the Excise Inspector received information that there was a conspiracy to sell cocaine, and arranged with one Abdul Hafiz to catch the culprits red-handed.3. On 30th September 1930, Abdul Hafiz gave the information that Abdul Shakur and Md. Yakub had arrived at Saharanpur, and were at the house of Saddu Beg. A party went out in search of the smugglers, but they were informed that Yakub and Shakur were not at the house of Saddu Beg. Md. Yakub and...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mohammad Yakub and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.73
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a revision from convictions under Section 120-B Indian, Penal Code and Section 60(a) of the Excise Act.2. The facts have been found by both the courts below and there can be no dispute about them in revision. The prosecution case was that the applicants Mohammad Yakub and Abdul Shakur, who are residents of Delhi, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the applicant Saddu Beg, and one Mohammad Ishaq, residents of Saharanpur for the supply of cocaine from Delhi to Saharanpur, in order to be sold at the latter place, There can be no doubt that the Excise Inspector received information that there was a conspiracy to sell cocaine, and arranged with one Abdul Hafiz to catch the culprits red-handed.3. On 30th September, 1930, Abdul Hafiz gave the information that Abdul Shakur and Mohammad Yakub had arrived at Saharanpur, and were at the house of Saddu Beg. A party went out in search of the smugglers, but they were informed that Yakub and Shakur were not at the house of...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Jatan and ors. Vs. Bishunath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All582
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this revision. The copy of the order is misleading inasmuch as it suggests that the order was passed by the District Judge of Jaunpur. The plaint was filed in the civil Court for declaration of title to certain occupancy holdings and in the alternative for possession, alleging that the defendants were mortgagees of the same and were denying the plaintiff's title. Objection was taken as to the jurisdiction of the civil Court, and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaint was then filed in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Jaunpur, who apparently came to the conclusion that the plaint ought to be amended and gave time to the plaintiffs to do so. They failed to amend it. The Assistant Collector then ordered the plaint to be rejected.2. A revision has been filed from the order of the Assistant Collector and a preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies.3. Under Section 253,...
Tag this Judgment!Sawanta and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All71; 136Ind.Cas.376
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction under Section 201, I.P.C. According to the prosecution evidence there was enmity between the deceased Zalim, who was an occupancy tenant, and Moharman and others, zamindars, as well as Sawanta, a partner of Zalim in the tenancy. Zalim had complained to the Deputy Collector that the Kamindar had realized rents but had not given the receipts for them, and a case under the Tenancy Act was registered against Moharman. It is alleged that there was some settlement, and receipts were given to Sawanta by the zamindars, but Sawanta colluded with them and returned the receipts, and then the crops of Zalim were again attached. A report was made by Sawanta against Zalim, who was arrested and kept in the thana for the night, and was let off the next morning. Zalim then filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate against the zamindars, Sawanta, as well as the local police. His allegation was that a bribe had been demanded from hi...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All318
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from a conviction under Section 193, Penal Code. The accused and his father were plaintiffs in a civil suit pending in the Court of the Munsif, and on 24th March 1930, which was the date fixed for its hearing, an application was filed on their behalf for an adjournment of the case on the ground that the accused's father Gobri Ram was ill and not present in Court, and this evidence was indispensable. The learned Munsif was informed by the defendants that Gobri Ram was actually present outside the Court-room, and that if an orderly were sent out he could be brought in. On this information the learned Munsif sent his Orderly to call in Gobri Ram. The orderly met Gobri Ram and was bringing him to the Court-room. When they reached the Court-verandah the accused, Durga Prasad, went out and made Gobri Ram run away. The reader of the Court and the defendant's vakil, as well as the orderly, saw this and informed the Court that Gobri Ram had...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All227; 140Ind.Cas.118
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from conviction under Section 225-B, I. P.C. The applicant was a judgment-debtor, and a warrant for his arrest was issued against him to the Central Nazir of the Banda Court. In the Banda Judge-ship there is a Karwi Subdivision where there is a registration clerk, to whom all processes for service are usually sent for execution. As the accused was a resident of Karwi, the nazir sent the warrant of arrest to the registration clerk at Karwi, who issued the warrant in the name of four civil Court peons. Out of these four named peons, two peons Gokul Prasad and Mahomed Husain, went to get the service effected. They arrested the accused, but he took them to his shop on the excuse that he had pail Rs. 200 out of the decretal amount and that the remaining amount was to be paid by instalments. The accused assured them that he had got a receipt about the payment of the money and would show it to them at his shop, which was only at a short distan...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwa Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All69; 136Ind.Cas.571
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal reference by the Sessions Judge of Aligarh recommending that the conviction of the accused under Section 279, I.P.C., be altered into one under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, and the fine be reduced from Rs. 200 to Rs. 100.2. The applicant was driving his motor lorry in a wrong direction keeping to the right side of the road. From the opposite direction Lt. Col. Pengelley was coming in his car and he very properly kept to the left side of the road. He blew his horn then at a distance of 40 yards, but the accused Jewa Ram did not turn back to the left side of the road but moved on compelling the complainant to leave the road and move on to its left side. Even then he did not escape safely, but his car was hit at right angles and was dashed against a tree and was smashed. The complainant received a few bruises also. The Magistrate found that although the accused applied his brakes he could not, in spite of his afforts avoid the accident. This impli...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Karan Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Das Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All635; 136Ind.Cas.145
ORDER1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for declaration, as it is worded:that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of 4 bighas and 12 biswas in the holding in dispute specified below, and according to this proportion they (the plaintiffs) are entitled to realize rent from the subtenants, and defendants 1 and 2 have nothing to do therewith.2. Defendants 3 to 8 are the alleged sub-tenants. The holding in dispute was a fixed rate tenancy comprising 6 bighas 17 biswas and 15 dhurs of which the plaintiffs claimed 4 bighas and 12 biswas.3. At a later date a further relief was added that:an injunction may be issued to defendants 1 and 2, restraining them from offering obstruction in the plaintiffs' realizing the rent from the subtenants.4. The plaint is as usual not very happily drafted to express what the plaintiffs obviously meant. In para. 4 of the plaint they stated that:Suit No. 194 of 1912 of the Court of the Munsif of Jaunpur has been fought between the partie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »