Allahabad Court August 1932 Judgments
Fattu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All692
Pullan, J.1. This is aFn application in revision from an order of the Sessions Judge of Meerut, who confirmed the conviction and sentences passed upon seven applicants for an offence under Section 225-B, I.P.C. A warrant was issued by a Revenue Court for the arrest of one Sarup Singh. Sarup Singh was arrested but he was rescued from the peons who arrested him. These facts maybe taken as admitted.2. This application in revision challenges the legality of the warrant. This objection is twofold. In the first place the warrant does not disclose the name or official designation of the person to whom the warrant was issued for execution, and secondly the warrant was served simultaneously with a notice under Order 21, Rule 37, Civil P.C.3. In our opinion the warrant was defective for both the reasons stated by the learned counsel. A warrant must be issued to some person for execution; and where no name or description of that person is given in the warrant, the person arrested can have no know...
Tag this Judgment!Kaul Ahir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All112
Pullan, J.1. The learned Sessions fudge of Azamgarh has referred to this Court the case of one Kaul Ahir who has been convicted of anoffence under the Arms Act. In the course of a house search two loaded cartridges were found in a corn bin in the house of this man Kaul among ghee, butter and other articles. Kaul and his son were prosecuted for an offence under the Arms Act. The son Lagan was acquitted, and the Magistrate has convicted Kaul on the ground that he was the head of the family and should therefore be held responsible for the Arms recovered from his house. There are many cases of this Court in which it has been laid down that it is improper to convict each and every member of a Hindu joint family because some illicit article 'has been recovered from the house, and the principle that the head of the family is responsible where there are other adult male members who had equal facilities of access to the article in question has never been affirmed as far as we are aware by any H...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›