Allahabad Court November 1946 Judgments
Nazir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All229
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Nazir Sikandar and Babu appeal against their conviction under Sections 302, 307, 894 and 366, Penal Code. Maru and Abdul Latif appeal against their conviction under sections 366 and 368, Penal Code. Maru also appeals against his conviction under Section 411, Penal Code. Nazir and Sikandar were sentenced to death under Section 302, Penal Code and the reference for the confirmation of the death sentence is also before us.2. Nazir and Sikandar accused are residents of village Kuteaca, police station Titavi, district Muzaffarnagar. Mst. Prakasho, P.W. 7, daughter of Jaggu P.W, 36, was also a resident of the same village. She was married to Meghraj deceased who was resident of village Tejalhera which is at a distance of 12 kos equivalent to about 15 miles from village Kutesra Babu accused is a resident of village Buddha Khera, 1 1/2 miles from village Kutesra.3. The full prosecution story is narrated by Mst. Prakasho P.W. 7, and is briefly as follows: Nazir and Sikandar...
Tag this Judgment!Salim Ullah and ors. Vs. Faqir Ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All142
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit for partition. The only question which now awaits decision is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Section 4, Partition Act (Act 4[iv] of 1893). The Courts below have refused them this benefit and they have come to this Court in second appeal. For a proper appreciation of the true legal position it is necessary to go into the facts in some detail. There is a pedigree attached to the plaint: ABDULLAH | ______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | Waliullah Babu ahmatullah=Mt. Bodha Alim Ullah Niamatullah | | _________________________|_ ______ | | | | | Nasrullah Khairullah Ishaq Mohd. Hussain=Masooma | _____________________________________________|________________________ | | | | | Moqimullah=Mt. Ulfat Mohammad Rasulan Saleha=Shafi Amina2. The property in dispute consists of three houses and originally belonged to Mohammad husain. The appellants Salimulla...
Tag this Judgment!Sheoraj and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All46
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by Sheoraj and twelve others against an order passed by the learned District Magistrate of Banda upon an application in revision made to him by the opposite party Bhagwan Din who had made a complaint against the applicants charging them with an offence under Sections 504, 506, 426, Penal Code, and Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act.2. The complaint was filed on 15-9-1945. The allegations in the complaint were that on a certain date when the complainant proceeded to one of his fields he found that a large number of cattle belonging to the first four applicants were grazing his crop and, when he rounded up the cattle and was taking them to the cattle pound the four applicants with the assistance of the remaining nine applicants forcibly rescued the cattle. At the end of complaint a sentence was added to the following effect : 'The accused persons 1 to 4 were abusing the complainant and also threatening him'.3. It is evident that so far as ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sewak Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All17
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Ram Sewak who has been convicted by the Courts below of an offence under Section 161 read with Section 116, Penal Code. The learned trying Magistrate imposed a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 50 which has been maintained by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal.2. The facts of the case are quite simple. The applicant, Ram Sewak, is a resident of Cawnpore and he filled in an inquiry form and obtained a ration card on the basis of that form for himself and for other members of his family including his father Satti Prasad and his brother Ram Nath. It is admitted that his father Satti Prasad and his brother Ram Nath were employed in the J. K. Cotton Mills and had already obtained a separate ration card in their capacity as the employees of that mill. The applicant Ram Sewak was, therefore, clearly drawing a ration in excess of that to which he was entitled in law and had committed an offence. This mat...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ambika Sahi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All80
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by two persons, Ambika Sahi and Ram Lagan Gond, against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur acting as a Court Of revision upon a petition made by the present-applicants challenging the validity of an order passed by a First Class Magistrate in the following circumstances.2. The first applicant, Ambika Sahi had obtained a decree from the Court of Small Causes at Gorakhpur, and, in execution of that decree, certain movable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor were attached and made over to the custody of the other applicant, Ram Lagan Gond who executed a supurdnama and a bond in the ordinary course. Later on, the judgment-debtor filed an objection to the attachment of his property and that objection was allowed by the Court. When the Amin of the Court asked applicant 2 Ram Lagan Gond to produce the property which had been made over to his custody he failed to produce it and tried to evade the order of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop Vs. Pratap NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All138
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 against a decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Agra in a suit for accounts.2. Mauza Itaura lies in the district of Agra, not very far from it. It is divided into four Mahals, Mahals Shyam Lal, Dindayal, Panna Lal and Moti Lal. On the death of Shyam Lal in 1909, his son, Prag Narain, the plaintiff, succeeded. In 1927 he also purchased Mahal Dindayal. In 1900 Ram Swarup, the appellant, was married in Itaura and took up his abode there. He entered service of Shyam Lal either in that very year or soon after as his agent. The present suit was instituted on 11-12-1937. The plaint is prolix document of portentous length, but, stripped of unnecessary details, the story unfolded by it is this: Defendant 1, Ram Swarup, and subsequently, defendant 2, his son, Chandrahans, were found to realise all the income in the best way possible and manage the property with the utmost economy and to the best advantage of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's fa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›