Allahabad Court August 1947 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.
Lal Chand Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All107
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. This is a revision by Lal Chand against the order of Mr. Brij Nandan Lal Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Muttra, dismissing the appeal or revision of the applicant from his conviction by a Magistrate of the first class on a summary, trial under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rule.2. The applicant had filed an appeal in the Sessions Court, but the learned Sessions Judge has treated it as a revision.3. The contention on behalf of the applicant before me is that in view of the fact that the applicant was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 and gur worth Rs. 1000 had been forfeited, he had a right of appeal and his appeal should have been heard as such by the learned Sessions Judge. I agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant and shall give my reasons below.4. Section 415, Criminal P.C., says that an appeal may be brought against any sentence referred to in Section 413 or Section 414 by which any punishment therein mentioned is combined with any ot...
Tota Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All137
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. The applicant Tota Ram was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 411, Penal Code, with respect to a bicycle which was said to be stolen property and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200. In default of the payment of the fine he was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. He made an application in revision to the learned Sessions Judge who rejected it and he has now come up to the High Court in revision from this order of the learned Sessions Judge.2. The case was tried summarily and although it is written in the order-sheet that after the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the applicant was examined and a charge framed against him, there is no record of his examination to be found on the file. There is also no charge-sheet on the file, but in view of Section 263, Criminal P.C., no formal charge was in fact necessary. But there is nothing in chap. XXII, Criminal P.C., to suggest that in a summary trial the examination of an accus...
Ram Brichha Misir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All121
ORDERDayal, J.1. This is a revision against the applicant's conviction under Section 186, Penal Code for having obstructed a commissioner' appointed by a civil Court in his attempt to enter his house in order to attach articles.2. It was urged that no physical obstruction was caused to the commissioner and that, therefore, no offence under Section 186, Penal Code was made out. The judgment of the trial Court in the summary trial just mentions that the commissioner stated that he was obstructed and that the learned Magistrate believed that the commissioner was obstructed. It does not indicate as to what facts constituted the obstruction. I, therefore, looked up the initial report of the incident which the commissioner submitted to the civil Court. In this report the commissioner mentions that the accused stood at the door challenging the plaintiff to beat him if he tried to enter the house and that when the commissioner told him not to interfere in his preparing the list the accused beg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›