Allahabad Court March 1948 Judgments
Amir Hasan and ors. Vs. Rex Thruogh Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All405
ORDERSapru, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Bijnor, dated 2nd July 1947, by which he has directed the applicants to be committed to the Court of Session after setting aside an implied order of discharge by a learned Magistrate of the first class of that district. The applicants were prosecuted on the report of one Ram Sarup which was sent in writing to the police 'Station, Chandpur on 6th December 1946. The complainant's report was to the effect that his house was attacked by a number of persons who gave him a severe beating, took away his ornaments, clothes, utensils and damaged his other property. The complainant further stated that he knew two of the accused and that he did not know the others but that he could identify them if they were brought before him. He pray, ed that the accused be prosecuted for an offence under Section 395, Penal Code.2. After necessary investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charg...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Rao Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All433
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is a criminal revision. The applicant Narain Rao was convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 417 read with Section 511, Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 and in default of the payment of the fine to six months rigorous imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares and he has now come to the High Court in revision from the order of the learned Sessions Judge.2. The findings of fact upon which the applicant's conviction is based are that he owed some money to the complainant Makund Lal who had obtained a decree against him for a sum of Rs. 78. The applicant was in Military service at Jubbulpore and the Military authorities there had agreed to the payment of the decree in monthly instalments of Rs. 10 each which were to be deducted from the applicant's pay. When the first instalment did not arrive, the complainant complained about it to the Military authorities at Jubbulpore, but before, he could r...
Tag this Judgment!L. Gendan Lal Vs. Rex Through B. Banarsi Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All409
ORDERSapru, J.1. The applicant in this revision is one Lala Gendan Lal. He was an accused person in a case, Habid v. Gendan Lal, under Section 324, Penal Code, in the Court of the Bench Magistrates at Muzaffarnagar. Habib was represented in that case by an advocate, Mr. Banarsi Das. It in alleged that, while arguing the case for Habib, Mr. Banarsi Das made two defamatory statements regarding Gendan Lal. The first statement was that he, Gendan Lal, had abducted a Khattri woman. The second statement was that he 'had illicit connection with a Jain woman. These statements were quite unnecessary for the purposes of argument in the case and the case of Gendan Lal is that they are deliberately made with a view to lower him in the estimation of his fellow men.2. Gendan Lal filed a complaint under Section 500, Penal Code, in respect of these statements. It came up for trial before a Bench of two Magistrates. The two Magistrates were not in complete agreement as regards what had happened during ...
Tag this Judgment!Seoti and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All366
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an application for bail on behalf of three persons, namely Seoti alias Nekasa, Raja Earn and Nand Kishore, who have been committed to the Court of Session at Mathura by a Magistrate of the first class on a charge under Section 304, Penal Code. Two others have been committed to the Court of Session along with them, but the charge against them is only one under Sections 323 and 147, Penal Code. It may be stated that the applicants Seoti and Raja Ram are the sons of the third applicant Nand Kishore.2. Before the applicants were committed to the Court of Session by an order of the committing Magistrate dated 7-1-1948, the applicants Seoti and Raja Ram had been released on bail by an order of this Court dated 10-9-1947. Nand Kishore had also been released on bail by an order of the Sessions Judge of Mathura. But when the Magistrate committed the applicants to the Court of Session he cancelled their bail and took them into custody. They made an application to the Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Electric Workers Union Vs. the U.P. Electric Supply Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All504
Wanchoo, J.1. These are nine connected appeals under Section 6 of Act XX [20] of 1946. Eight of them are by various electric supply companies managed by Messrs Martin & Co., while the nine (no. 16) is by the Electric Workers' Union, Allahabad. These appeals relate to certain changes made in the draft standing orders submitted by Martin & Co., on behalf of the eight electric supply companies which they are managing. The same set of draft standing orders were filed for all the eight companies.2. The main question raised in these appeals as well as in some others is about the scope at Act XX [20] of 1946, and the extent of the authority of the Certifying Officer to make changes in the draft standing orders submitted to him.3. The contention on behalf of the electric, supply companies is that the Certifying Officer has merely to see whether provision has been made for all the matters mentioned in the schedule of the Act and that he has not to see that the provision that has actually been m...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Etah Vs. Nem Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All330
Malik, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Collector of Etah as Manager of the Court of Wards in charge of the estate of Rajendra Kumar. The parties to this litigation are Jain Hindus. One Babu Lal was the last male owner and he died in the year 1930. He had two sons, Lakhpat Rai and Rajendra Kumar. Lakhpat Rai predeceased Babu Lal. Lakhpat Rai had left a widow, Mt. Bitto Bai. Rajendra Kumar on the date of Babu Lal's death was a minor and the Court of Wards took over the superintendence of his estate. The Court of Wards as the guardian of Rajendra Kumar made an application under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, on 17th April 1937. On 80th April 1937, the Collector, Etah, forwarded the application under Section 6 to the Special Judge, 1st Grade, Etah, and while the proceedings were pending before the Special Judge, Mt. Bitto Bai as the guardian of Suresh Chandra filed an objection under Section 11 and claimed that Suresh Chandra was entitled to a half share in the property, ...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Shanker Malaviya Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All321
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. This is an application by Daya Shanker Malaviya under Section 491, Criminal P.C. It appears that Daya Shanker Malaviya was arrested on 27-1-1948 in pursuance of an order passed by the District Magistrate of Allahabad under Section 3(1)(a), U.P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act 4[iv] of 1947. The reasong for his detention were also explained to him on the day on which he was arrested and a copy thereof was supplied to him and he was informed that he had a right to make a representation to the District Magistrate. So far, there-fore, as the provisions of this Act are concerned, they were strictly complied with. The legality of the detention is, however, attacked on other grounds.2. It has first been contended that it was not open to the Provincial Government to dele-gate its power under Section 8(1)(a) to the District Magistrate by virtue of Section 11 of the Act, while at the same time retaining the power in itself also. The Notification delegating the powe...
Tag this Judgment!Zamir Qasim Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All285
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. This is an application by Syed Zamir Qasim under Section 491, Criminal P.C. The applicant was arrested in October 1947, and was ordered by the District Magistrate of Allahabad to be detained for three months from 13th October 1947, under Section 3(1)(a), U.P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 4 of 1947. As the period of detention was expiring, a fresh order was passed by the District Magistrate on 5th January 1948, and was communicated to the applicant on 8th January 1948, and his further detention for a period of three months was ordered.2. It is not in dispute in this case that the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of Act 4 of 1947 have been complied with. The contention on behalf of the applicant, however, is that there is no provision in the Act for extension of the period of detention and that the District Magistrate could not pass a fresh order for his detention on the same materials on the basis of which he had passed the previous order and had conside...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›