Allahabad Court June 1948 Judgments
Mehar Chand Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ74
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C. by Mehar Chand against his detention under the orders of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, dated 12th February 1948, under Section 3 (1) (a), U. P. Act, IV [4] of 1947.2. This order of detention was to remain in force for six months and unless revoked would have, therefore, remained in force till the 12th August.3. On 30th April 1948, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, passed another order, which is as follows:Whereas I, Rameshwar Dayal, District Magistrate, Saharanpur, am satisfied with respect to the person named below that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order and communal harmony it is necessary so to order:Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by el. (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3, U, P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947 .... I Rameshwar Dayal, District Magistrate, Saharanpur,...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ31
ORDERSeth, J.1. The applicant, Harish Chandra, has been convicted of an offence under Section 419, Penal Code, on the following facts found by the Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur, which have not been disputed before me.2. The applicant alighted from a train at the Dobhi station on the morning of 20-12-1946. He met Deonath Tewari, the station master of that railway station and represented to him that he was Marketing Inspector, that Lalganj and Deogaon were within his circle and that he could help the station master in getting cloth. He also suggested that he was going that way and would like to hand over the cloth if the station master sent a man with him. Believing these representations the station master called a pointsman, named Ramjee Sharma, and handed over Bs. 100 to the pointsman with the direction that that sum might be given to the applicant on receipt of cloth. Another person, named Jaggan, who was working as a pointsman in the same railway station, believing in the repr...
Tag this Judgment!Alla Mehar Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ69
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. Alla Mehar applied under 8, d9i, Criminal P. C, against his detention under the orders of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, under Section 3 (1)(a), U. P. Act IV [4] of 1917. That order was passed on 22nd February 1948 and was to continue for six months.2. The counter-affidavit filed for the Crown States in para. 6:That the detention of the applicant has been revoked under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act on 10th May 1948, and he has been ordered to enter into a personal bond of Rs. 2000 and two sureties in the same amount for not taking part in any communal activity likely to disturb the public peace under Section 3 (3) of the aforesaid Act, and he remains in custody only because he has failed to furnish either the personal bond or the sureties required.3. The subsequent order requiring the petitioner to enter into a personal bond is not before the Court. It cannot, therefore, be said as to who passed it, the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate....
Tag this Judgment!inder Prakash and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ34
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. Inder Prakash and 21 other persons have applied individually from jail under Section 491, Criminal P. C. These persons are in jail under the orders of the District Magistrate, Etah, passed on various dates between 3rd and 14th February 1948, Those ordered to be detained on 3rd February are Ram Adhar, Ram Charan, Om Narain, Seoti Prasad, Parmeshwari Dayal and Ram Prakash. Inder Prakash, Ravindra Kumar, Shanti Sarup, son of Raghubar Sahai, Vishesh Chandra, Shanti Sarup son of Har Prasad and Shankar Singh were arrested on 5th February. The rest were ordered to be detained after 5th February.2. The grounds of detention supplied under Section 6, U. P. Act IV [4] of 1947 to all the persons arrested on the 3rd and to all the persons arrested on the 5th February, except Shanti Sarup son of Har Prasad, and Shankar Singh were as follows:That you are indulging in dangerous subversive activities, spreading alarmist statements and rumours and promoting communal and politic...
Tag this Judgment!Faiyaz Khan and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ232
Agarwalla, J.1. Six persons, lddu Khan, Chhunnu Khan, Mallu Khan, Faiyaz Khan, Mindu Khan and Yasin Khan were prosecuted for offences under Sections 147, 304, 323 and 149, Penal Code and Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act for forming an unlawful assembly with the common object of rescuing their cattle from Paqir Mohammad and Ammi Khan; and for committing a riot and for causing simple hurt to Ammi Khan and the death of Faqir Mohammad. They have been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. They have come up in appeal to this Court.2. The prosecution case was that on 3rd July 1946, at about 4 p.m. the cattle of the accused Faiyaz Khan, Mallu Khan and Yasin Khan trespassed into the sugarcane field of Ammi Khan and his father Faqir Mohammad deceased, Faqir Mohammad and Ammi Khan were at that time engaged in sowing paddy in another field at a distance of about 100 paces-from their sugarcane field. When they found that cattle were grazing in their field, they drove away the cat...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sunder Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ163
ORDERSeth, J.1. Applicant Ram Sunder is a licensee for selling kerosene oil at Machhlishahr in the District of Jaunpur. He has been convicted of an offence under Section 6, U. P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, n [2] of 1947.2. In short, the case against him is that he sold kerosene oil on 17th February 1947 for prices in excess of the controlled price and thereby con-trayened the provisions of the Kerosene Oil Control Order of 1942.3. The grounds taken in the Memorandum of Revision resolve themselves into two points, one of them being that the applicant could not have been convicted of an offence under Section 6 of Act II [2] of 1947 for an offence committed on 17th February 1947, and the other being that a summary trial was illegal in the circumstances of this case. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant saw the force of the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge, to whom he had gone in revision before coming to this Court, with regard to the second point and th...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ78
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. These references arise out of proceedings under Sections 107/112 and 117, Sub-section (3), Criminal P. C.2. It appears that there are two parties in the Sadh Community of Farrukhabad. One party i3 known as party No. l probably because it was so named in some litigation, and the other is known as party No. 2. There is a 'Chauki Sadhan' at Farrukhabad where be to the parties claim to have a right of worship and to hold bhandaras, that is, religious feasts, on certain dates. There has been civil and criminal litigation between the parties. In March or April 1947, the first party wanted to hold a bhandara. Proceedings under Section 147, Criminal P. C., were initiated by the City Magistrate as he apprehended a breach of the peace. By an order dated 28th May 1947, the learned Sessions Judge declared the rights of be to the parties in the 'Chauki Sadhan' to perform worship and to hold bhandaras. be to parties were dissatisfied and they filed revisions before the learned Se...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Mangal Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ87
Bhargava, J.1. The appellant Jai Mangal, and two other persons named Baohoo Singh and Prabhu were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 420, Penal. Code. It was alleged that, on one occasion, they cheated Shet Khan and his son, Shirin Khun and, on another occasion, they cheated Ram Narain and induced them to deliver big sums of money and there were two separate charges in respect thereof. The appellant as well as the other accused denied the allegation and contended that they had been falsely implicated owing to enmity. They were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Kanpur with the aid of a jury, who returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against the appellant and of not guilty against the other two accused. The appellant was, accordingly, convicted in respect of be to the charges under Section 420, Penal Code, and sentenced to an aggregate term of five years, rigoroua imprisonment and the other two accused were acquitted.2. The appellant's learned Counsel has, in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhopan Vs. Chhotey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ82
ORDERSeth, J.1. The applicant, Bhopan, applies in revision against his conviction under Section 498, Penal Code. The charge against him is that ha was detaining Mt. Bhagwati, wife of Chhotey complainant, with the intention that she may have illicit intercourse with him. This is not the first complaint filed by Chhotey against the applicant. Once before this, Chhotey had filed a complaint against the applicant under the same Section 498, Penal Code and in that prosecution Bhopan was acquitted. Inspite of this previous history Mt. Bhagwati, who is a young woman of 25 years, has been unwilling to live with the complainant. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case set up on his behalf was that be was not detaining Mt. Bhagwati.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, has found the charge proved against the applicant in the following words:The evidence adduced by the prosecution fully proved that the woman was the lawfully wedded wife of Chhotey com...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Vs. Pati Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ116
ORDERAgarwalla, J.1. Hallu and Pati Earn, residents of Lashkar, Gwalior State, were charged with the commission of an offence of murder of Cbokhey Lai, Constable, by causing injuries on His skull with a spade on 9th April 1947, at about 8 A. M. near about railway culvert No. 881, mile 151/5-7, between railway stations Sitbauli and Sandalpur on the G. I, P. railway lands in Gwalior State territory. On some date -before 4th May 1947, the accused were arrested, and on 4th May 1947, identification proceedings were held.2. The charge sheet against the two accused was framed by the Government Railway Police, Gwalior State, on 8th August 1947, but it was submitted to the City Magistrate,, Jhansi, on 27th August 1947. The inquiry was held by the learned Magistrate and by an order dated 81st December 1947, the learned Magistrate committed the accused to stand their trial before the Sessions Judge of Jhansi, within the territories of the Indian Dominion.3. The learned Sessions Judge, being of op...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »