Allahabad Court July 1948 Judgments
Raj Kishore Tewari Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ158
Bhargava, J.1. Ram Sewak Gosain, resident of Village Kasaura, P. 8. Sahatwar, district Ballia, Kishore Panday and Rameshwar Pandey, who live in village Amdore, P. S. Bansdih, in the same district, and Raj Kishore Tewari and Suba Tewari of Village Sakutwa, P. S. Tarkulwa, district Deoria, were prosecuted under Section 366, Penal Code. Bam Sewak and Kishore Pandey were pro. sectioned under Section 420, Penal Code, also. The Sessions Judge of Ballia, who tried the case, found Suba and Rameshwar not guilty and acquitted them. He found other accused persons guilty and convicted Earn Sewak, Kishore Pandey and Raj Kishore Tewari under Section 366, Penal Code, and sentenced Raj Kishore to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Es. 250 and Earn Sewak and Kishore Pandey to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each. He also convicted Earn Sewak and Kishore Pandey under Section 420, Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo ri...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad Vs. Nirmal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All179
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit brought by the appellant's father who is now dead for the recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note executed by the respondent for a sum of Rs. 700 on 3rd October 1938, carrying interest at the rate of one per cent. per mensem. It would appear that the loan was originally advanced on 7th April 1931, the amount being Rs. 350. The rate of interest was the same. This pronote was subsequently renewed on 21st March 1934 to include the unpaid balance of the principal and interest. The amount for which this pronote was renewed was Rs. 500. Subsequently, a third pro-note was executed on 4th October 1935 to include the principal and interest of the previous pro-note. This pro-note was renewed a fourth time on 3rd October 1938 when the principal amount was ' fixed at Rs. 700, as representing the principal amount of the previous pro-note and interest. It is no longer in dispute that the respondent is entitled to the bene...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Vs. Matoley and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ59
Waliullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Orai, recommending that an order of commitment made by a Magistrate of the first class be quashed and that the Magistrate be directed to proceed with the trial of the case. This case came up before one of us but in view of the importance of the questions involved in it, and further in view of conflicting authorities on these questions it has been referred to a Full Bench.2. It appears that on 13th November 1945, in the after-noon at about 3 P. M. a fight occur, red between two sets of villagers of village Umrar, P. Section Orai, District Jalaun. As a result of injuries received in the fight one Lalloo Ahir lost his life. One Shyam Behari filed a complaint against four brothers viz., Matoley, Lalloo, Hira Lal and Har Dayal under Section 323, Penal Code, read with Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act. Under; orders of a Magistrate police investigation followed as a result of which a case against Matoley, Hira Lal, Lalloo and...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip Singh Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ359
Agarwala, J.1. Lal Singh, Dalip Singh, Hayat Singh and Gopal Singh were prosecuted for having abducted Mt. Chanchari with intent to compel her or knowing it to be likely that she .would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; Dalip Singh was further prosecuted for having taken her away and detaining her at hid house at Bhainskhal with a like intent; Hayat Singh was further prosecuted for having robbed Alam Singh of Rs. 120. The offences mentioned in the charge against them were under Sections 366 and 408, Penal Code, in the case of all and Section 392, Penal Code, in the case of Hayat Singh only. All these accused have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of offences under Section 366, Penal Code, Hayat Singh has been acquitted of the offence under a. 892, Penal Code All the accused except Dalip Singh, have been acquitted of the offence under Section 498, Penal Code. Dalip Singh alone has been convicted for an offence under B. 498, Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's r...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip Singh Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All237
Agarwala, J.1. Lal Singh, Dalip Singh, Hayat Singh and Gopal Singh were prosecuted for having abducted Mt. Chanchari with intent to compel her or knowing it to be likely that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; Dalip Singh was further prosecuted for having taken her away and detaining her at his house at Bhainskhal with a like intent; Hayat Singh was further prosecuted for having robbed Alam Singh of Rs. 120. The offences mentioned in the charge against them were under Sections 366 and 498, Penal Code, in the case of all and Section 392, Penal Code, in the case of Hayat Singh only. All these accused have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of offences under Section 366, Penal Code, Hayat Singh has been acquitted of the offence under Section 392, Penal Code. All the accused except Dalip Singh, have been acquitted of the offence under Section 498, Penal Code. Dalip Singh alone has been convicted for an offence under Section 498, Penal Code, and sentenced to on...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Ram and anr. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ445
Agarwala, J.1. Parasram alias Har Prasad, and Basant were prosecuted under Section 304, Penal Code, read with 3. 84, Penal Code, for having caused the death of one Munnalal. They have been convioted of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. They have come up in appeal to this Court.2. The prosecution case was that the accused, who are father and son, were neighbours of Munnalal residing in village Chitora in the district of Budaun. They were relations of each other and had descended from a oommon ancestor. Their houses were adjacent to each other. There was a cattle trough in front of the house and haithalt of the deceased Munnalal. Thi3 cattle trough adjoined the platform of the house of the acoused. There was a longstanding dispute as to the ownership of the cattle-trough between the accused and the deceased. On 14th June 1947, there was a quarrel over this trough between Munnalal deceased on the one hand and the acoused and one Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Ram and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All274
Agarwala, J.1. Parasram alias Har Prasad, and Basant were prosecuted under Section 304, Penal Code, read with Section 34 Penal Code, for having caused the death of one Munnalal. They have been convicted of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. They have come up in appeal to, this Court.2. The prosecution case was that the accused, who are father and son, were neighbours of Munnalal residing in village Chitora in the district of Budaun. They wore relations of each other and had descended from a common ancestor. Their houses were adjacent to each other. There was a cattle trough in front of the house and baithak of the deceased Munnalal. This cattle trough adjoined the platform of the house of the accused. There was a long-standing dispute as to the ownership of the cattle trough between the accused and the deceased. On 14th June 1947, there was a quarrel over this trough between Munnalal deceased on the one hand and the accused and o...
Tag this Judgment!Guptar Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ127
Agarwalla, J.1. Guptar Ahir, Dalsingar Ahir and Kanhaiya Misir were prosecuted under Section 304 read with S. Si, Penal Code, for having caused the death of Mt. Sumaria on 18th July 1946, in village Malaon, police station Bansgaon, three hour after sun-rise. Dalsingar Ahir and Kanhiaya Misir have been acquitted and Guptar Ahir has been convicted and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. Guptar Ahir has come up in appeal to this Court.2. The prosecution case was as follows: One Rambali was a ploughman of Rajan Babu, zamindar of the village. He had given up the service of Rajan Babu about two months prior to the incident. Fifteen days prior to the incident the accused, Guptar Ahir and Kanhaiya Misir servants of Rajan Babu, forcibly took away a bullock belonging to Rambali. When this did not induce Eambali to resume service at the place of the zamindar, Guptar, Kanhaiya and Dalsingar went to Rambali's house on I3tb July 1946, and asked ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bharose and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ144
Bhargava, J.1. Lokpal Singh iS a zamindar of village Lohari Khera; and for sometime he was the assistant secretary of the Chhatri Sabha in the District of Etah. One of the objects 'of the Sabha was to reclaim those Thakurs who had been converted to Islam. Five or six years before the occurrence Lokpal Singh took a prominent part in the conversion of a large number of nauMuslims of Nagla Aman Singh; and a year before the incident, which led to the prosecution of the appellants, namely, Earn Bharose and Fiddad Khan alias Fida Husain, a panchayat was convened at the house of Thakur Dhara Singh of Bijaura to arrange for the conversion of one Karan to Hinduism. The case for the prosecution was that while the panchayat was being held Sher Khan arrived there and prevented the conversion of Karan, who was his relation, and took him away with him: that this led to an exchange of hot words be. tween Sher Khan and Lokpal Singh, and in consequence thereof the nau-Muslims of Nagla Gohatia, who were...
Tag this Judgment!Bucha Lal Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ20
ORDERSeth, J.1. The applicant Bucha Lai is the owner of Motor truck No. U. P. C. 1612. He was tried along with the driver of the truck named Tota Ram for an offence under Section 72/124, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the charge against him and Tota Ram being that they had carried or allowed to be carried on the aforesaid motor truck a load in excess of what was specified in the certificate of registration on various dates namely, 3rd March, 6th March and 8th March 1948. Tota Ram pleaded guilty to the charge but the applicant denied his guilt. He pleaded that be was ill, that he knew nothing about the excess weight having been carried and that it was Tota Bam who used to engage vehicle for the load.2. I am not concerned with the conviction of Tota Ram because it is Bucha Lai alone who has come up in revision to this Court against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad, maintaining his conviction under 8, 72/124, Motor Vehicles Act. One of the points urged before the learned Se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »