Allahabad Court May 1948 Judgments
Qabool and ors. Vs. Chajju and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All411
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. Qabool, Dharam Singh, Manohara nd Bhullen filed a complaint against Ohajju and others under Sections 427, 147 and 379, Penal Code, alleging that the complainants were tenants of the accused who was a zamindar; that the accused (complainants) were in possession of the plots in dispute and had sown wheat, sugarcane and other crops thereon; that the accused had taken away the wheat grain and destroyed the sugarcane crop and that thus they were guilty of the offence charged.2. The complaint was tried by a Bench of Magistrates, Second Class, of Kairana, district Muzaffarnagar. The Bench dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused.3. Against the acquittal of the accused the complainants filed a revision before the District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar. The District Magistrate had made this reference to this Court.4 The main ground taken by the learned District Magistrate in his reference is that there was no valid trial inasmuch as out of the two Bench Magistrates wh...
Tag this Judgment!Rajdeo Singh Vs. Emperor Through Sadloo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All425
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This reference arises in a proceeding started under Section 145, Criminal P.C. It appears that there was a dispute between Sadloo Bhar and his brothers on the one hand and Eajdeo Singh on the other, concerning a plot of land and a crop standing thereon. Sadloo Bhar moved the learned Magistrate by means of an application stating that there was an imminent danger of a breach of the peace concerning this land and the crop and that the property should be attached. The learned Magistrate seems to have been satisfied as to the imminence of the danger of a breach of the peace and ordered that notice might be issued under Section 145, Sub-section (1), Criminal P.C., to the parties concerned. He further Ordered that the property in dispute be attached. On the date fixed in the notice issued under Section 145(1), Sadloo Bhar did not appear. The learned Magistrate dismissed Sadloo Bhar's application for default on 4th July 1946, and ordered that the attached property be releas...
Tag this Judgment!Khyali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All430
ORDERSeth, J.1. Applicant Khyali was tried by a jury in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Kanpur of an offence under Section 375, Penal Code. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to receive a punishment of 15 stripes under the Whipping Act. Khyali appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge of Kanpur and it was argued before the Court of appeal that the charge to the jury was vitiated on account of misdirections and omissions and dhat, therefore, the verdict of the jury should be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept this contention and dismissed the appeal, hence this application in revision,2. Mr. Sri Narain Sahai, the learned Counsel for the applicant, has taken the same points before me. In particular, he has urged with considerable force that the charge is bad inasmuch as the Judge did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Kameshwar and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All440
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. This is an application by Kameshwar, R.K. Chaube, Babu Lal Srivastava and Radhey Chopra under Section 491, Criminal P.C., against the orders of detention passed against them under Section 3(1)(a) of U.P. Act, IV of 1947 by the District Magistrate of Allahabad. The orders under Section 3 in each of these cases were passed on 23rd March 1948, and the reasons for detention were communicated to the applicants on 1st April 1948. I have gone through the orders under Section 3 and the notices under Section 3 and they, in my opinion, sufficiently comply with the provisions of U.P. Act, IV of 1947. There is, therefore, no reason to hold that the detention is illegal on the ground that there has not been sufficient compliance with the provisions of U.P. Act, IV of 1947.2. The main contention on behalf of the applicants in this case is that U.P. Act, IV of 1947 is ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature inasmuch as it provides for arbitrary detention and not for preventive de...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Through Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board Vs. Puran M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All403
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application by the Medical Officer, Municipal Board, Aligarh, praying for the setting aside of the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh, acquitting in appeal Puranmal accused of his conviction under Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, 6[vi] of 1912.2. Puranmal. accused, carries on oil shop at Aligarh. On 22nd June 1940 Syed Hasan Khan, Sanitary. Inspector of the Aligarh Municipal Board, went to the shop of the accused and asked for pure Laha oil on payment of price. The accused gave him the oil under a receipt in which he expressly declared that the oil was pure. The oil was sent to the public analyst for examination. The public analyst reported that the oil contained a small quantity of impurity. The accused was then prosecuted under Section 4 of Act 6[VI] 1912. The accused denied the charges 'simpliciter.' He did not plead, in his defence, the circumstances mentioned in Section 6 of the Act, as absolving him of the offence. The rep...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Prasad Vs. Mt. Makhna and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All375
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. These are two appliby one Ganesh Prasad,on of Purshottam, arising out of Execution First Appeals Nos. 69 and 190 of 1944 for a certificate that the cases fulfil to the requirements of Sections 109 and 110, Civil P.C., and are fit for appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The following pedigree will be helpful in appreciating the facts of the case: RAMESHWAR SAHU | __________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | Ram Das Ram Narain Deo Narain= Purshottam Raghunandan =Mt. Annapurna | Mt. Makhna | widow J.D. Widow Laxmi Narain= D.H. Ganesh Pd. J.A. Mt. Sunpatti. Mt. Lilawati appellant3. Suit No. 51 of 1923 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Benares for the partition of the joint Hindu family property by Ram Das, Purshottam and the applicant against Ram Narain, his son Laxmi Narain and Deo Narain. They all appear in the above pedigree. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 28-4-1924. Deo Narain was lunatic...
Tag this Judgment!District Board of Farrukhabad Vs. Prag Dutt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All382
Malik, C.J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant, the District Board of Farrukhabad. The plaintiffs filed a suit for an injunction restraining the defendant from realising a tax which was assessed on the plaintiffs by the defendant as the circumstances and property tax for 1944.1945. The plaintiffs alleged that they did not do any business within the area under the management of the District Board and were therefore not liable to pay the tax.2. The defence was that the plaintiffs resided and also carried on business within the limits of the District Board and the Board had assess, ed the plaintiffs on only such income as was made by the plaintiffs within those limits. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 131, District Boards Act.3. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that except the plaintiff Bansidhar, who resided in Benares, all the other plaintiffs resided in Makrandnagar and their house in Kanauj was used for the purpose of their business...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo NaraIn Jafa Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All422
ORDERWalli Ullah, J.1. This is an application by Shiva Narain Jafa under Section 491, Criminal P.C. It is alleged by the applicant that he is being wrongfully detained in the District Jail, Gonda, under an order of detention, passed by the District Magistrate of Budaun, dated 5th February 1948. This application was received by this Court by post. It is supported by an affidavit. It purports to have been verified by the Superintendent, District Jail, Gonda. The applicant prayed that he might be allowed to argue the application personally as he is a lawyer of 33 years standing is date was fixed and notice of the date of hearing was given to the Government Advocate. A counter affidavit was filed by the learned Government Advocate. It is sworn to by Harbans Singh, head constable P.S. Sarai Nau, Budaun. In it inter alia it is asserted that paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed by the applicant is a lie. In paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit it is asserted that the applicant's communal activi...
Tag this Judgment!itwari Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All369
Mootham, J.1. This is an application in revision which raises the questions of the validity of Section 10 and of the effect of Section 18, U.P. Communal Disturbances Prevention Ordinance, 1947, (U.P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1947).2. The applicant pleaded guilty of being in possession of a sword for which he possessed no licence; and, as the offence was committed in an area which had been declared under the Ordinance in question to be a communally disturbed area, he was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of an offence punishable under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and Section 10 of the Ordinance, and under the latter section sentenced to imprisonment for the term of three years. In imposing a sentence for a term exceeding that which he was empowered to pass under Section 82, Criminal P.C., the learned Magistrate acted in exercise of powers he believed to have been conferred upon him by Section 18 of the Ordinance. An appeal to the learned Sessions Judge of Agra was dismissed.3. Now Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Munni Lal Vs. Kishun Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All443
Malik, C.J.1. One Babulal Taliwal obtained a decree against Shiamlal and Kishun Prasad, father and son for a sum of Rs. 6000 from the High Court of Bombay in the year 1936. In the same year, the decree was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Aligarh, for execution. Several objections were taken to the execution of the decree by the judgment-debtors, but these objections were dismissed and the appeals against them were dismissed by this Court. After the disposal of the objections, the decree was executed and several items of property belonging to the judgment-debtors were sold on 8-2-1939. Certain objections were filed to the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. In September 1910 the objections were dismissed for default and on 25-9-1940, the sale was confirmed and thereafter the appellant Munnilal alias Rup Kishore, who had purchased the property at an auction, obtained possession of the property. It is said that after having obtained possession of the property, the auctio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »