Allahabad Court June 1948 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.
Kunni Lal and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ101
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. Chunni Lal and Kunni Lal were found guilty of a breach of Rr. 33 and 34, Banasas Regulated Town Cloth Ratitioning Order 1946, read with 8, 7, Central Act, XXIV of 1946, by a learned Magistrate of the first claBS of Banaras and were each sentenced to a fine of Ha. 80 for breach of B. 33 and to a fine of Ea. 15 for breach of B. 34.2. Against their conviction and sentence of fine they went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of Banaras.3. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the revision application of Chunni Lal bad no force and he rejected it. He has, how-aver, referred the revision application of Kunni Lal.4. The prosecution case was that Chunni Lal is a licensed retail distributor of cloth in Banaras and Kunni Lal is the salesman in the shop of Chunni Lal. On 2nd August 1946, the shop in question was searched. Chunni Lal was - not present. The search party took away a stock register, Ex. P.l. It was found that the register was not correctly maint...
Mewa Lal and anr Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ91
ORDERSeth, J.1. These 19 applications in revision have arisen out of 19 different oases started against several applicants in these revisions, for alleged offences under the U. P. Gur Control Order, 1945, and the U. P. Oilseeds and Oilseeds1 Produot3 Control Order, 1945. In some of the oases the offence was alleged to have been constituted by a non-compliance with certain requirements mentioned in the licenses granted to the accused in those cases. In other cases the offence was alleged to have been constituted by a breach of some of the provisions of the Control Orders.2. At the outset of the trial in each one of these cases two preliminary objections were taken on behalf of the accused persons. One of the two preliminary objections is common to all the 19 cases. The other preliminary objection arose only in those cases where the alleged offence was in respect of non-compliance with the requirements mentioned in the licenses granted under the Control Orders. The first preliminary obje...
Tilak Raj and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ94
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., by 37 persons who have been ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar under U. P. Act (IV [4] of 1947). Ten of them namely Sheetal Prasad, Maheah Dutt, Bali Earn, Uttam Singh, Daya Bam, Birbal Singh, Amir Singh, Bhanwar Singh, 0m Prakash and Eama however have been released. Their application has, therefore, become infructuous and is hereby dismissed. I proposed to deal with the application of the remaining 27.2. The case of one of these 27, however, namely Ramgopal is slightly different from the case of the remaining 26. I shall first consider the general argument which has been advanced on behalf of 26 of the applicants and then deal separately with the case of Ramgopal.3. These 26 applicants were originally ordered to be detained on 6th February 1948 or within a few days thereafter for a period of three months. They were taken to the jail at Muzaffarnagar, A few days later they were ...
Deo Mitra Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ105
ORDERSeth, J.1. In this case the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur has recommended that the conviction and sentence passed upon the applicant Deo Mitra under Section 4 (l), U. P, Prevention of Adulteration Act be set aside.2. Deo Mitra was convicted because ha was found selling a bottle of vinegar, which, on examination by the Public Analyst, wag found to be deficient in acetic acid by about 37 percent. It is by no means clear to me what this deficiency means because in a book cited by the Crown counsel before the learned Sessions Judge it was found stated 'Vinegar baa essentially dilute acetio acid generally 4 to 5 per cent, along with a little acetio ether.' How if according to this authority vinegar has only 4 to 3 per cent, of acetio acid, it is difficult to understand how the acetic acid was deficient by about 37 pet cent, in the sample, unless it be that what is meant by the report of the Public Analyst, is that the deficiency was 37 per cent, of 4 to 5 percent. Such a deficiency woul...
Puttu Lal and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ107
Bhargava, J.1. The appellants, Puttu Lai and His brother, Lain Earn, residents of village Dhai, P. 8. Kalan, were committed to session, charged under Sections 304, read with Section 34, Penal Code. Before the commencement of the trial in the Court of session, a charge under Section 342, I. P. C., was also framed against the appellants. The Sessions Judge of Shahjahan pur, who tried the case, found (the appellants guilty under Sections 325 and 843 read with Section 34, I. P. 0. and convicted them accordingly. Each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 325, I. P. 0., and for one year under Section 342, I. P. 0.2. The appellants are Mahabrahmana. A fortnight before the occurrence, Lala Ram appellant had gone to collect jajmani dues from his clients. He had taken Bam Chandar with him. While they were staying at village Saidapur, Bam Chandar stole Bs. 30 belonging to Lala Ram and disappeared. When Lai Ram return. ed to his village, on 19 5 1946, he alo...
Tillu Ahir and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ114
ORDERSeth, J.1. Each one of the applicants in this case was convicted by the trying Magistrate under Section 325, Penal Code. They were charged with having assaulted one Sarju with lathis and to have inflicted upon his person & number of injuries one of which was grievous. When the matter came up in appeal before the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur, it was argued before him that in the absence of any definite proof on the record that the grievous injury had been caused by any one of the three assailants, none of them could be convicted under Section 325, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge realised the force of this argument and altered the conviction from one under Section 325, Penal Code, standing by itself to one under Section 325 Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the same Code.2. The first point that has been urged in this application before me is that the applicants are not guilty of any offence, inasmuch as, they were acting in the exercise of the right of private defence. The fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›