Allahabad Court September 1931 Judgments
Sarju and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All28
ORDERNiamatullah, J1. The applicants Sarju, Manki and Baram with two others, Dhari and Chandrajit, were convicted by a Magistrate, First Glass, Ghazipur, of an offence under Section 579, I.P.C., in that they out the gram crop belonging to one Ramdeo in village Sarauli. Chandrajit, aged 16, was released on his executing a bond under Section 562, Criminal P.C. On appeal by the remaining four accused the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Dhari.2. The complainant found on several occasions that his gram crop in a certain field was partly removed over night. On the night between 3rd and 4th March 1931 he in company of one Hardeo, kept a secret watch on the field. After midnight according to the case for the prosecution the five accused entered his field and began to cut the crop standing thereon. The complainant and Hardeo quietly advanced towards the field, and when they were sufficiently near the spot, the complainant made a rush towards the thieves. Basram was caught on the spot but the o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhiku Gir and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All449
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision by Bhiku Gir and Narottam Gir from an order of! the learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, who dismissed their appeal from an order, of conviction passed by a Magistrate, First Glass, of that District, sentencing the applicants to six months' rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 332, I. P.C. The sentence was reduced to three months' rigorous imprisonment on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that on 24th March 1931, B. Munshi Lal, the Excise Inspector, received information that the applicants were in possession of illicit liquor. He obtained the assistance of the Police Inspector, the Sub-Inspector and two constables for the purpose of raiding the house of the applicants and searching it. They sent for four witnesses who, it should be noted, were not men from the locality but from different villages. This was a contravention of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it is explained that the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All25
ORDERNiamatullah, J1. The applicants Kashinath and Dhoomi Mal have applied in revision from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, who dismissed their appeal from the order of conviction passed by a Magistrate, Eirst Glass, of that district for an offence under Section 419, I.P.C. Kashinath was also convicted by the trying Magistrate of an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. or Section 403 in the alternative, but the learned Sessions Judge set aside his conviction on the latter charge.2. It appears that both the accused travelled without tickets and on being questioned at the railway station Etawa, Dhoomi Mal represented that he was a relative of Kashinath who held a pass entitling them to travel without tickets. Kashinath produced a pass which he said entitled him as a railway servant and Dhoomi Mal his relative to travel without tickets. It was found on inquiry; that the pass had been granted to one Jagannath Prasad, a railway servant, but was lost, and in some inexplicable...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All26
ORDERNiamatullah, J1. This application for revision raises a question of jurisdiction in a case of criminal breach of trust against the applicant pending in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly.2. The applicant Sunder Lal was the agent of Udainath Shah, who is the owner of a number of villages in the Bareilly district lying in various tahsils and including some in tahsil Baheri. A complaint was filed on his behalf against the applicant in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Baheri, charging the applicant with embezzlement of large sums of money which he is said to have collected in all the villages in the Bareilly District. The question is whether the Sub-divisional Magistrate, whose territorial jurisdiction is limited to Tahsil Baheri, had jurisdiction to try him for embezzlement of what might have been collected in villages situate in other tahsils. The proceedings having so far advanced that a charge has been framed against the applicant. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All58; 136Ind.Cas.373
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Dehra Dun recommending that proceedings may be ordered against the sureties for the accused. He was proceeded against under Section 109, Criminal P.C. Two persons stood sureties for him for his good behaviour. Shortly before the expiry of the period, he was again found concealing himself under suspicious circumstances in a lonely and abandoned water-mill without any ostensible means of livelihood and unable to give a satisfactory account of himself. He was accordingly sent up again under Section 109, Criminal P.C. The. Magistrate was not able to take any action against the sureties before the expiry of the period. He expressed the opinion that he wag unable to take any action against the sureties. The District Magistrate considers that there was no objection to the proceedings being taken against the sureties even though there was some delay.2. So far as this last matter is concerned, we agree with the District Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Hurmat Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All109
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Agra recommending that the recurring fine of Re. 1, per day imposed on the accused should be set aside.2. A notice was issued by the Municipal Board to the accused for removal of certain constructions. The accused failed to comply with the notice and was prosecuted. The learned Judge has agreed that his conviction was proper.3. The Magistrate however, in addition to imposing a fine of Rs. 20, for the offence has ordered that if the construction be not removed within ten days the accused shall farther pay a fine of Re. 1, per day.4. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly referred to the case of Amir Hasan Khan v. Emperor [1918] 40 All. 569 in which a learned Judge of this Court held that such a recurring fine should not be imposed at the time of the first conviction itself.5. Section 307, Municipalities Act (Act 2 of 1916) provides that the person shall be liableon a conviction before the Magistrate to a fin...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Patrakhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All124
Sulaiman, J.1. It is difficult to characterize this matter although it has been treated as a criminal reference by the District Magistrate. The Sessions Judge in a Sessions trial convicted the accused under Section 302, I.P.C., but for reasons given in the concluding portion of the judgment he inflicted the lesser sentence of transportation for life.2. The Local Government Pleader appears to have addressed a letter to the local District Magistrate giving reasons why the sentence of death should have been passed. On this, the District Magistrate sent a letter to the Registrar of the High Court enclosing the Government Pleader's letter and recommending that the death penalty instead of transportation for life should be imposed on the accused. The Registrar very properly returned hist letter and the record to the Disrict Magistrate and declined to entertain it when it was sent direct. He however suggested that the record may be resubmitted through the Sessions Judge as laid down in Ch. 10...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Harihar Kalwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All122; 136Ind.Cas.65
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. On 15th February 1931, the Magistrate issued an order under Section 117(3) Criminal P.C., against Hari Har accused to execute a personal bond in Rs. 1,000, with two sureties in like amounts, each in cash, for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the inquiry.2. The Sessions Judge modified the order on 24th February 1931, and ordered his release on his executing a bond for Rupees 1,000 with two sureties, in like amounts to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The accused however was not released, because he was involved in another offence. When the District Magistrate was moved, he pointed out that the Sessions Judge had no power to interfere with the order under Section 107, read with Section 117(3), Criminal P.C., but might have reported to the High Court. When the matter came up again before the Sessions Judge, he had admitted that he had mistaken the order to be an order of bail and had wrongly amended it. He passed a fresh order on 12th March that unless...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahman Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All190; 140Ind.Cas.184
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Jalaun recommending that the conviction of one Abdul Rahman of an offence under Section 182, I.P.C., be set aside. The learned Judge is of opinion that there was no complaint such as is required by Section 195(a), Criminal P.C. for the prosecution of the accused.2. The accused lodged an information at the police station to the effect that the motor lorry belonging to a certain person had been overloaded. On investigation the police found that the information was false. Accordingly the investigating officer moved the Superintendent of Police that the accused be prosecuted for an offence under Section 182, I.P.C. The Superintendent of Police endorsed the following note addressed to the District Magistrate; 'District Magistrate. The accused is the reader of the Tahsildar of Konch. Have you any objection to his prosecution?'3. The District Magistrate, instead of signifying his wishes in the matter to the Superintendent ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›