Allahabad Court June 1939 Judgments
Nihal Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All662
ORDERMohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Muttra recommending that the order of the Magistrate for restoration of possession of certain immovable property be set aside. It appears that one Salig Ram brought a complaint against Nihal Singh and other under Sections 447 and 352, I.P.C. On 30th September 1938, Nihal Singh was convicted under only one count, namely Section 447, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 15. The other accused were acquitted. On 10th October 1938, i.e. within one month of the order of conviction, Salig Ram applied for restoration of possession of property to the Magistrate. No orders were passed till 5th November when the application was granted and possession was restored to the complainant. Salig Ram is now in possession. The present application was made by Nihal Singh on the ground that the order of restoration passed by the Magistrate was beyond his jurisdiction not being within one month of the date of conviction. U...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All665
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. Thakur Singh, Pyare, Bed Ram alias Bidhey and Ghariba appeal from their conviction and sentences under Sections 201 and 385, I.P.C. This case was started on a complaint made by Chunni, brother of Khamani deceased. The complaint was instituted under Section 302, I.P.C., but the accused were committed to the Court of Session under Section 304, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge added a charge under Section 201, I.P.C. There was however no charge under Section 385, I.P.C. The facts that have given rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. Thakur Singh, appellant 1, is one of the zamindars of village Abheypura. The other three appellants are the servants and tenants of Thakur Singh. On 11th November 1937, at 6.30 P.M. Chunni lodged a report at police station Amanpur, in the district of Etah, against all the four appel. lants. In the report, it was stated that appellants 2 to 4 were sent by appellant 1 on the preceding day (10th November) after sunset to call Khamani t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›