Allahabad Court November 1935 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Emperor Vs. Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All129
Allsop, J.1. The respondent Narain Kachi was sentenced by a Magistrate in Agra to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under the provisions of Section 236(1), Cantonments Act, for importuning certain British soldiers to the commission of sexual immorality. He appealed to the Sessions Judge who ac-quitted him upon a point of law. The Section under which the respondent was convicted is in the following terms:Whoever in a cantonment loiters for the purpose of prostitution or importunes any person to the commission of sexual immorality shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to Rs. 200.2. The charge against the respondent was that he had approached certain soldiers and had offered to supply to them a girl for Rs. 2 or a boy for Re. 1. The Sessions Judge held that nobody could be convicted under the section unless he was loitering for the purpose of prostituting himself or importuned any person to the commission of sexual ...
Sri NaraIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All146
ORDERNiamatullah, J. 1. The applicants Sri Narain and Raj Kishore have been convicted by a Special Magistrate for criminal trespass under Section 447, I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each. They have come to this Court in revision. It appears that there was a grove on plot. No. 1039 in village Bhasot in the District of Jaunpur. One of the applicants is the son and the other a grandson of Tai Ram. It is alleged by them that one Ram Sarup-executed a deed of mortgage in favour of Tai Ram in respect of the grove in dispute. Ram Sarup's title is said to be derived from a lady named Mt. Raju, who was admittedly a co-sharer in the grove to the extent of one-third. The applicants case at the trial was that, in, the exercise of their right as mortgagees,, from Ram Sarup, the heir of the admitted co-sharer, Mt. Raju, they have every right to cultivate the grove land. The complainant does not claim more than, two-thirds of the grove, but denies that Ram Sarup had any right to the one...
Emperor Vs. Asghar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All134
Sulaiman, C.J.1. As I was a member of the Bench which decided Jhabwala's case known as the Meerut Conspiracy Case: Jhabwala v. Emperor 1933 A L J 799, I should like to add a few words. In that case we were obsessed by the enormous delay of nearly 4 1/2 years that had taken place. The question whether the entire evidence for the prosecution must he produced before the committing Magistrate did not arise for decision in that case, nor was the point argued before us at the Bar. Our observations were no doubt in the nature of obiter dicta and therefore not of any binding authority. We made it clear that if a Magistrate stopped proceedings and did not take all the evidence that the prosecution wished to produce, and discharged the accused, the order would be improper, and that similarly if he did not take all the evidence offered by the accused and nevertheless committed the accused to the Court of Session, the order would be illegal and bound to be set aside. We emphasised that the Code co...
Muhammad Ahmad Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All171
ORDERNiamat Ullah, J.1. This is an application for revision against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, by one Mohammad Ahmad Khan, who was convicted by a Magistrate, First Class, of that District of an offence under Section 189, I.P.C. His appeal to the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed, except so far that the sentence was reduced from six months to four months' rigorous imprisonment. The applicant appears to have sent petitions to the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue complaining against certain actions of the Tahsildar. These petitions were sent to the Collector for enquiry and report. The latter issued a notice calling on the applicant to substantiate the allegations made by him against the Tahsildar. The notice was given to Dhuma Prasad Singh, a Police constable, for service on the applicant. The cons-table's evidence is to the effect that he served the notice on the applicant who was asked to make an endorsement on the back of the notice acknowledging ...
Durga and ors. Vs. Lakhpat Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All139; 160Ind.Cas.876
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has been laid before us evidently for a formal order that it be dismissed. Its value is Rs. 1,600; it was filed one day after the expiry of the limitation prescribed by law. An application under Section 5, Lim. Act, was made by the appellants praying that one day's delay be condoned in view of the circumstances alleged in an affidavit filed in support of the application. The office listed the application before a single Judge of this Court who dismissed it, after a notice was issued to the respondents and after both the parties were heard. The application under Section 5, having been dismissed, there is no gainsaying the fact that the appeal, which was admittedly filed after the prescribed period of limitation is barred, but such order can be passed only by a Bench of two Judges, as the appeal itself is not cognizable by a single Judge. The position is somewhat anomalous. The application under Section 5, on which the result of the appeal hinges, can be dis...
Radha Raman and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All177
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Babu Radha Hainan Das and Bindeshri Prasad against the order of the learned District Magistrate of Gorakhpur. On 4th February last Babu Balmakund Lal died. On 25th May 1935, a report was made to the learned District Magistrate by the police that Bindeshri Prasad was making formidable preparations to establish forcible possession over the property. On receipt of this report, the learned District Magistrate passed an order under Section 145, Criminal P.C., and attached the property under Section 145(4). When the case came up for hearing the learned Magistrate was informed that mutation was proceeding in the revenue Court in respect of the property in dispute. The mutation proceedings which had been started on the application of the trustees who were appointed under Balmakund Das's will, dated 1st March 1931, were contested by Bindeshri Prasad, brother of the deceased. The revenue Court instead of deciding which party was in poss...
Behari Lal Vs. Sukhbir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All442
1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff who was the managing trustee of the school trust which is the zamindar of a certain village Khatauli. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff as zamindar claims the demolition of the extension of a platform by the defendants and certain other constructions which the defendants have made in Nos. 249, 237 and 248 of the abadi of qasba Khatauli. The defence was that the plaintiff had no cause of action in regard to these numbers and that the defendants had been long in possession of No. 248 and the other numbers. The finding of the lower appellate [Court was that the three numbers were shown by the Revenue Records as being in the zamindari of the plaintiff but that the numbers were situated in the town area of the town of Khatauli and, there fore, the presumption that the zamindar was the owner of every inch of land did not apply in the present case. The Court held that the khasras produced did not show the ownership of the plaintiff in the site of...
Sheopujan Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All853
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, recommending that the conviction of Sheopujan Prasad under Rule 12, Clause (1) (b) of the United Provinces Sugarcane Rules, 1934, framed under Act 15 of 1934 be set aside. Sheopujan Prasad is the clerk of the licensed agent, Ram Daur Singh. On 5th March 1935, Mr. K. C. Shukla, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phulpur, visited Khorason Road Station and there checked the weight of sugarcane of a cart which had been weighed by the accused. He found that 2 maunds 13 seers weight had been entered short in the receipt issued by the accused to the owner of the cane. On the report of the Inspector (Mr. K. O. Shukla) the accused was prosecuted and convicted under Rule 12, Clause (1) (b), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rupees 100. The learned Judge is of opinion that the accused could not have been prosecuted unless the provisions of Clause (4) had been complied with. He has observed that:There is nothing on the record ...
Seth Behari Lal Vs. Sukhbir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.440
1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff who was the managing, trustee of the school trust which is the zemindar of a certain village Khatauli. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff as zemindar claims the demolition of the extension of a platform by the defendants and certain other constructions which the defendants' have made in Nos. 249, 237 and 248 of the abadi of qasba Khatauli. The defence was that the plaintiff had no cause of action in regard to these numbers and that the defendants had been long in possession of the No. 248 and the other numbers. The finding of the lower Appellate Court was that the three numbers were shown by the Revenue Records as being in the zemindari of the plaintiff but that the numbers were situated in the town area of the town of Khatauli and, therefore, the presumption that the zemindar was the owner of every inch of land did not. apply in the present case. The Court held that the khasras produced did not show the ownership of the plaintiff in the si...
Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. Abdullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All385; 160Ind.Cas.866
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs which had been decreed by the two lower Courts. The plaintiffs as zamindars of certain land sued for the ejectment of the defendant whom they alleged to be a tenant paying them ground rent for the site of the house of which the defendant was in occupation. This was not a case in which the plaintiffs alleged that a transfer had been made to the defendant by some other tenant. The plaint set out in para. 1 that 'according to the custom prevailing in this purwa and the neighbouring purwas, the defendant like other tenants occupies the site as a tenant, on condition that whenever the proprietor of the land shall stand in need of getting the land vacated he will get the same done by paying the price of the building materials or by getting the same removed. The pleading therefore is that there is a special custom in this purwa, which is within the suburbs of Meerut...