Allahabad Court July 1945 Judgments
Debi Prasad Singh and anr. Vs. Jaldhar Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All125
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decrees of the District Judge of Basti (or, more accurately, the Additional District Judge of Gorakhpur at Basti) passed in three appeals which were consolidated before him. Two of the appeals arose out of the suits for pre-emption of a deed of sale which for the purposes of this appeal I may describe as one in favour of the appellants, Kedar Nath and Debi Prasad, transferring a certain share in the village of Manikpur in consideration for a sum of Rs. 100. This deed was executed in the year 1940. The appellants had in the year 1939 purported to effect an exchange by which they had acquired a two pie share in this village and they set up the defence that they were cosharers in the village at the time of the execution of the deed of sale. The third suit which led to an appeal to the Court of the Additional District Judge arose out of a suit instituted by one of the Plaintiffs in the other two suits to pre-empt this exchange....
Tag this Judgment!Baddan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All253
Sinha, J.1. The appellant, Baddan, has come in appeal before us from the sentence of death passed upon him by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore under Section 302, Penal Code. There is along with the appeal the usual recommendation for the confirmation of the sentence. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge on a legal ground. The trial started with the aid of three assessors, M. Ashfaq Ahmad Beg, B. Mannu Lal and M. Fateh Mamoor Khan. On 17th March 1945, one of the assessors, viz., M. Fateh Mamoor Khan did not attend the Court. The learned Judge chose to proceed with the case in his absence with the aid of the remaining two assessors. He passed the following order:M. Fateh Mamoor Khan, assessor, has not come, I shall continue to hear the case without him, and I shall deal with him separately.Section 284, Criminal P.C., provides that the trial should be held with the aid of at least three assessors. Section 285 provides for the c...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad HussaIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All146
Sinha, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares with the recommendation that the sentence passed, upon Mohammad Husain be set aside and the fine, if paid by him, be refunded. The-learned Magistrate sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 25 or in the alternative, to eight days simple imprisonment. On 25th July 19ii, a report was made by Mohammad Husain in which he described the complainant, Mohammad Qasim, as a gunda and a badmash. Mohammad Qasim thereupon filed a complaint under Section 500, Penal Code, and the-learned Magistrate has passed the sentence already mentioned.2. Mohammad Qasim's case was that he was a respectable man and not a gunda or a badmash. Mohammad Husain admitted the report but denied having described Mohammad Qasim as a gunda and a badmash. The learned Magistrate found that the report was recorded in the words of Mohammad Husain and he had described Mohammad Qasim in the terms already mentioned. On an application in revision it was argued before th...
Tag this Judgment!Dina Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All117
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Muttra by which he maintained the conviction and sentence of six weeks' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 and, in the alternative, simple imprisonment for another period of six weeks passed on the applicant by the learned Magistrate. He was charged with an offence under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, read with Clause (6) and (22), U.P. Government Foodgrains Distribution Order, 1943. It appears that the applicant had applied to the civil authorities for an identity card and was availing himself of its benefits. He was, thereafter, employed in the Central Ordnance Depot and secured ration from the military authorities also.2. The facts are not in dispute before me. The question of sentence has, however, been pressed The Courts below proceeded upon Clause (6) of the Rules as it stood before the amendment. I have no doubt in my mind that the clause as it stood prior to the amen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›