Allahabad Court June 1945 Judgments
Hirdey Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All4
Sinha, J.1. In the District of Farrukhabad there is a family of which the founder was a man Thamman Singh. Thamman Singh had three sons, Ulfat Rai, Hukum Singh and Shyam Lal. Hukum Singh has two sons, Harish Chandra and Sita Ram. Shyam Lal's son is Hirdey Ram. Of these Harish Chandra and Hirdey Ram were convicted under Section 20 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to a term of rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both have come before me in appeal. Hirdey Ram's appeal is No. 676 of 1944, that of Harish Chandra is No. 677. The judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge bears an even date in both the cases, namely, 31st July 1944. On 13th October 1942, a man named Hazari Lal was murdered. It was alleged that some dacoits had gone to the house of the deceased and demanded money for political activities. It might be mentioned that that was the time when the place was seething with political discontent and the scene of murder was in a ferment. On 2nd January 1943 Hirdey Ram was arrested ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Dayal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All227
ORDERSinha, J.1. Krishna Dayal, the applicant, has come before me against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore, by which he affirmed the judgment of a Magistrate of the first class, who held him guilty under Section 409, Penal Code, and sentenced, him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eighteen months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 and in default, to a further period of six months' rigorous imprisonment. There was a further order that out of the fine realized a sum of Rs. 250 should be paid to the Post Master General. The case is a complicated, one and covers a vast field. It is, besides, a case of a novel character. Its complexity and novelty have presented considerable difficulty. I have, however, had the advantage of hearing the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Government Advocate, assisted by an official of the Department concerned, at great length. I have with their assistance gone into the whole record myself, inasmuch as the main contenti...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Qayum and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All430
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Azamgarh. The facts briefly are these : Abdul Qayoom and four other Mahomedans were convicted under Section 429, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 45 each for beating a buffalo which had been dedicated to a deity, with lathis and spears and causing his death. One Rameshar Ahir had arranged the dedication of the buffalo to the deity so that the epidemic of cholera, which was raging in his village, might subside as a result of the intervention of the deity. According to the postmortem examination by the Veterinary Surgeon Tufail Ahmad, death was due to the injuries on the body of the animal caused by lathis and spears. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that although the buffalo had ceased to be the property of any particular person, nevertheless he served as a stallion for breeding purposes and destruction of such an animal caused wrongful loss to the public and the act, therefore, fell withi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhurey Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All7
ORDERBennett, J.1. The three applicants, Bhurey Singh, Munshi Lal and Shankar Dayal, were convicted with three other persons by a special Magistrate of offences under Sections 147 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. On appeal the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of two accused with the result that the conviction under Section 147 could not be sustained, the Sessisons Judge not accepting the allegation that there were other persons also concerned in the affair who had not been brought to trial. The Sessions Judge accordingly converted the conviction of the three applicants to one under Section 325 read with Section 34, Penal Code. The application has been argued on two grounds. The first is that the Courts below were not justified in believing the witnesses as against some accused when they disbelieved them as against others. This ground is not infrequently put forward in applications of this kind, but it is not really a ground upon which a revision application can b...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kala Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All191
Sinha, J.1. Ram Kala, a young Jat of 18, who has been convicted under Sections 376 and 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr, has come in appeal before us. Along with the appeal there is the record of the case for the confirmation of the sentence of death. The charge against the appellant, in common with two others, Sheodan and Karan Singh, was that they committed rape on one Bir Wati, a Jat girl, of 13, on 23rd. August 1944, in mauza Bharaoti in a field and then murdered her. Sheodan is of the same age as the appellant; Karan Singh is 45. Both Sheodan and Karan were acquitted as the evidence against them was not satisfactory. The story for the prosecution is briefly this : On 23rd August 1944 Mt. Bir Wati, the deceased, along with her cousin, Mt. Vidya. Wati, went to her grandfather, Surja, with, his food and after giving the food, when she was on her way back, the appellant, Sheodan and Karan caught hold of her. Vidya Wati ran away and i...
Tag this Judgment!Alla Bux and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All170
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an application in revision by Alia Bux, Noor Mohammad, Shakoor, Wazir, Bhuria and Tunda who were tried and convicted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, and sentenced by a learned Magistrate of the first class to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 each or in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment. The article in question, namely the potatoes seized, was also forfeited. On appeal, the conviction and sentences passed upon the applicants were affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. The charge against the applicants was that on the night between 22nd and 23rd December 1943 they were found exporting potatoes from the United Provinces to the Bharatpur State in contravention of Clause 3, U.P. Potatoes and Poultay (Movement) Control Order 1943. It appears that on 22nd December 1943 Mr. Kirpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, received information that some gar was to be exported from Muttra district to Bharatpur State that nigh...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All161
Wali Ullah, J.1. These three applications in revision are connected with Cri. Revn. Nos. 518, 542 and others. All these revisions have been connected and heard together because there is one common question involved in all of them, viz., the question of the validity of the U.P. Food Grains and Oil Seeds (Movement) Control Order, 1943. The applicants in these three revisions are three sets of persons who were accused of an offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, inasmuch as they were alleged to have contravened the provisions of para. 3, U.P. Food Grains and Oil Seeds (Movement) Control Order, 1943. The three applicants of Revn. No. 508 are Roshan Lal, Ram Das and Puran Mal. They are the proprietors of the firm of grain dealers Messrs. Roshan Lal Durga Prasad of Bareilly. In Revn. No. 509 the applicant is Harihar Prasad, the railway dalal who, according to the prosecution, had arranged for the export of grain by the firm of Roshan Lal Durga Prasad. In Revn. No. 536 the applican...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Akbar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All223
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. These are four connected references made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Basti, recommending that the conviction and sentence passed upon each of the four applicants before him be set aside. It appears that on 9th December 1943 the Provincial Government, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Sub-rule 2(a) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, made an Order, called the United Provinces Cattle, Sheep and Goats (Slaughter) Control Order, 1943. It was published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary on the same date. This Order was subsequently amended on 12th January 1944 by means of the Order No. V-3421/C.S., published in the U.P. Gazette Extra ordinary of that date, and again on 15th March 1944 by means of the Order No. 116/XII-D. 72/44, published in the U.P. Gazette dated 18th March 1944. The two amendments, however, are not material for the purposes of the present case. Paragraph 3 of the said Control Order provides inter alia that no person s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›