Allahabad Court July 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.
Kedar Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All940; 157Ind.Cas.557
Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal by one Lala Kedar Nath, who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore, at Banda, of an offence under Section 471, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The charge against the appellant arose in the following circumstances:On 30th May 1934, the appellant filed a suit against one Ram Nath for recovery of a certain amount on the basis of a pro-note. The pro-note in question and the receipt were however not filed along with the plaint, and it was stated that they would be produced on the next date of hearing. The pro-note in question was alleged to have been executed on 31st May 1931, so that the suit was just within time. The next date of hearing in the case was 30th July 1934. On that date a written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant, in which it was definitely alleged that the plaintiff had probably committed some forgery in the pro-note and the receipt in his p...
Emperor Vs. Bahraichi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.200
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Bahraichi and Jumman against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Basti ordering that Bahraichi be committed for trial to the Court of Session for an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, or in the alternative for an offence under Section 373, Indian Penal Code and that Jamman be committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial along with Bahraichi for an offence under Section 368, Indian Penal Code. Bahraichi was convicted under Section 368, Indian Penal Code by Mr. Alauddin, Magistrate, 1st Class, Basti. They filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence of both the appellants and made an order directing the applicants to be committed for trial to the Court of Session as stated above. The chief point urged by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars the r...
Sri Kishen Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All928; 159Ind.Cas.900
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal appeal on behalf of one Sri Krishen who has been convicted by a jury and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad under Section 408, Penal Code, on 2 charges to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500 and in default six months' further rigorous imprisonment on each charge. The points which have been taken by learned Counsel for the appellant are that there was misdirection to the jury. In ground No. 1 it was alleged that the Judge did not even tell the jury that they were judges of evidence and facts. This however is admitted to be inaccurate as on the last page of the judgment the Judge clearly stated to the jury:You have to judge from the circumstances and evidence referred to above whether the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.... If you entertain any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused Sri Kishen he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.2. The case therefore is distinguished from the ruling re...
Chandrabhan Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All968; 159Ind.Cas.531
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal appeal on behalf of one Chandrabhan Lal, a patwari, who has been sentenced to one year's R.I. and Rs. 50 fine or in default three months' further R.I. under Section 218, Penal Code, on the following charge:That you in 1341-F being a public servant as a patwari of Kanak Sarai and as such charged with the preparation of khasra of that village framed the khasra of 1341-F in respect of plots Nos. 396, 397 and 398 in a manner which you knew to be incorrect; i.e. in Col. 8 you did not show the possession of Baijnath which was actually delivered to him by the civil Court Amin on 20th July 1933 in your presence and instead put in cross marks in Col. 8 showing no change with intention of causing loss to Baijnath.2. The facts alleged for the prosecution are that two brothers Raghunath and Baijnath were members of a joint Hindu family and they made a usufructuary mortgage of 16 fixed rate tenancy plots to Ramdas, Bhagwan Das and Ramsarup for Rs. 3,000 on 28th June ...
Ganga Ram Vs. Habib Ullah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All212; 159Ind.Cas.525
ORDER1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Pilibhit recommending that an order of a Bench of Honorary Magistrates calling upon the complainant's mukhtiar in a case pending before them to produce in Court a particular document should be quashed, or, in the alternative, steps be taken against the mukhtiar under the Legal Practitioners Act.2. It appears that the complainant had previously filed an application in the Court of the District Magistrate against the accused, which was returned to him with the direction to file a regular complaint. Upon this the complaint in this case was filed. The complainant and his witnesses had apparently denied that the witnesses also had signed the previous application. After the complainant and one witness had been examined and the second witness was being cross-examined, the counsel for the accused filed an application before the Court that the application in the possession of the complainant's mukhtiar should be allowed to be inspected b...
Nanku and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All916; 159Ind.Cas.183
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of four persons Nanku, Asharfi Singh, Shankar and Ramlal who have been convicted by the Sessions Court of Budaun under Sections 148 and 352/149, Penal Code, and Shankar has also been convicted under Section 19(f), Arms Act. Sentences of one and two years' R.I. under Section 148 and three months' and one month's R.I. under Section 352/149, Penal Code, have been imposed and an additional one year's R.I. under the Arms Act on Shankar. The circumstances are somewhat peculiar. It is admitted that the accused Nanku, whose age is given as 20 years, was married four years ago to a child Mt. Chandrakali whose age is about ten years and her age at that period was apparently six years. She stayed with her husband for 15 days only after the marriage and she was then brought back to the home of her father Durga Prasad. Durga Prasad refused to allow his daughter to go back to her husband. The reason which he has given in cross-examination is 'I do not send my...
Goverdhan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All930
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by one person Goverdhan who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Muttra Mr. Girish Prasad Mathur, under Section 304, Penal Code, and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. There were eight accused persons before the Sessions Court and the prosecution evidence was that these eight persons and one Genda who was absconding came to the fields of Bahori and others and stated that they would not allow Bahori and others to irrigate their fields from the canal, but that the accused would use the canal water for their own use. Abuse followed and the accused party attacked Bahori and the men with him with latihis. These men were Debi Ram, Harey and Lodhi. Injuries were caused on all these persons and Bahori fell down severely injured on his head and died, three days later in hospital. His injuries were fractures of the skull. On the other persons the Civil Surgeon found injuries as follows:Karey, 2 simple injuries.Lodhi, 3 simple injuries.Deb...
Samuel John and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All935
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal appeal on behalf of two persons and their cases have been argued separately. The trial was by a jury; so although learned Counsel have each, entered in their grounds of appeal that the conviction was against the weight of evidence on, the record that is not a ground which can be considered by this Court. In addition to this argument it has been alleged that there was misdirection of the jury. In this file Laltu Singh has been convicted under Section 376, Penal Code, of rape of a young girl called Victoria Lazarus and Samuel John has been convicted of abetment of that rape. There was a third accused Daniel David who has been acquitted. The first argument in regard to misdirection is based on a portion of the charge to the jury on p. 88 as follows:If you do not believe Victoria's statement, made in Court, that the accused Samuel John and Daniel David also had raped her, but, if you believe her statement, made to the police, Ex. R referred to above, you are...
Goverdhana Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1918All108; 159Ind.Cas.409
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by one person Goverdhan who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Muttra, Mr. Girish Prasad Mathur, under Section 304, Penal Code, and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. There were eight accused persons before the Sessions Court, and the prosecution evidence was that these eight persons and one Genda who was absconding came to the fields of Bahori and others and stated that they would not allow Bahori and others to irrigate their fields from the canal, but that the accused would use the canal water for their own use. Abuse followed and the accused party attacked Bahori and the men with him with lathis. These men were Debi Ram, Karey and Lodhi. Injuries were caused on all these persons and Bahori fell down severely injured on his head and died three days later in hospital. His injuries were fractures of the skull. On the other persons the Civil Surgeon found injuries as follows:Karey, 2 simple injuries.Lodhi, 3 simple injuriesDeb...
Umrao Singh Vs. Pahlad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1001; 158Ind.Cas.238
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. A simple money decree was passed in favour of the respondent. Pahlad Singh, against the appellant Umrao Singh. Under a private award delivered out of Court, the rights under this decree were transferred to Pahlad Singh's creditor, Mt. Sagia, on 4th June 1931. This award was made a rule of the Court on 27th November 1931. Before this happened, namely on 23rd November 1931, Pahlad Singh applied for the execution of the decree against the appellant. The judgment-debtor (appellant) took the objection that inasmuch as under the award the interest of the decree-holder had been transferred to Mt. Sagia, the execution could pot proceed. Before the matter was disposed of, Mt. Sagia, under a deed of relinquishment, re-transferred the rights given to her in the decree to the respondent, Pahlad Singh. The Court below has dismissed the objection on the ground that, inasmuch as the alleged transferee did not get her name s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »