Allahabad Court July 1938 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.
Shyamapado Deb Vs. Sunder Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All536
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a criminal reference by Mr. K.N. Wanchoo, the Sessions Judge of Benareg, recommending that the order of a Second Class Magistrate, Mr. Asthana, should be set aside. The facts of the case are that Shyama Pado Deb was prosecuted under B. 406, Penal Code, in the Court of Mr. Asthana in October 1937 and the prosecution witnesses were examined and the statement of the accused was recorded and a charge was framed under Section 406, Penal Code, and the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses after the charge sheet was taken. The 10th October 1937 was fixed for the defence. At that stage, Mr. Asthana was transferred from the district and the case was transferred to another Magistrate, Mr. Rana, for trial. No further proceedings took place in the Court of Mr. Rana and Mr. Asthana was re-posted to the district and the case was retransferred to his file and came before him on 24th January 1938 and he fixed 4th February 1938 for the production of the defence. On th...
Pancham Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All538
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a criminal reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra recommending that the conviction of Pancham Ram under Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, should be quashed and the fine refunded, if paid. The Magistrate had before him a case in which a Bazar Chaudhri of the Agra Cantonment Board took a sample of ghee from the shop of the accused and the analyst stated that it contained fat or oil foreign to pure ghee. After stating the various points raised by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge considers that the defence of the accused that the ghee was bought by him under a written warranty is sufficiently established by him under Section 6 of the Act and that on such a defence the Bazar Ghaudhri should have gone to the wholesale shop of Seva Ram and Jiva Ram and taken a sample from that shop. Now Section 6 of the Act requires that the accused vendor must prove three things to the satisfaction of the Court:(a) that the article or drug sold was purc...
Mohammad Yakub Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All534
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a criminal revision by Mohammad Yakub, Sub-Inspector of Police, who has been fined by the District Magistrate Rs. 100 or four months' simple imprisonment under Section 166, Penal Code and Rs. 50 fine or two months' simple imprisonment under Section 342, Penal Code. The sentence has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares. I need not recapitulate all the facts and allegations in this matter which have been fully set out in the judgments of the Courts below. Briefly the matter arose from a report of theft made by one Jamna Halwai of Phulpur town in police station Ahraula, district Azamgarh of which the Sub-Inspector, Mohammad Yakub, was then in charge. This report of theft was made on 6th September 1935 against Mohan, Jethu and Sukhdeo Bhars. On 22nd September 1935 Ram Parichan, constable, made a report that he had seen a number of persons including the complainant Jamna Halwai collected at the house of Matadin and the persons there decided that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›