Allahabad Court April 1949 Judgments
Shyamlal Sharma Vs. King Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ719
ORDERSeth, J.1. These two references to this Pull Bench have been connected together because the questions referred in both of them depend foe 'their decision on the interpretation of Section 162, Criminal P. C. In either case the applicant is a railway employee who has been convicted of an offence of receiving illegal gratification under Section 161, Penal Code; in either case a police trap 'was laid to capture the accused red-handed in the commission of the crime ; in either ease the services of a Magistrate were employed to witness the commission of the crime ; in either case the Magistrate recorded a report detailing the events that took place in his presence and the manner in which the trap was laid ; and in either case the Magistrate made free use of the report to refresh his memory while deposing as a witness. It was contended in both these cases, when they came up for hearing before this Court, that the depositions of the Magistrates were inadmissible because they had made use ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamlal Sharma Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All483
Seth, J.1. These two references to this Full Bench have been connected together because the questions referred in both of them depend for their decision on the interpretation of Section 162, Criminal P.C. In either case the applicant is a railway employee who has been convicted of an offence of receiving illegal gratification under Section 161, Penal Code; in either case a police trap was laid to capture the accused red-handed in the commission of the crime; in either case the services of a Magistrate were employed to witness the commission of the crime; in either case the Magistrate recorded a report detailing the events that took place in his presence and the manner in which the trap was laid; and in either case the Magistrate made free use of the report to refresh his memory while deposing as a witness. It was contended in both these cases, when they came up for hearing before this Court, that the depositions of the Magistrates were inadmissible because they had made use of their re...
Tag this Judgment!Sughar Singh Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All277
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is a revision by Sughar Singh against his conviction under Section 19(f), Arms Act, by a Magistrate, first class, Mainpuri, the appeal against the conviction having been dismissed by the Sessions Judge.2. The facts leading to the applicant's conviction are that on the search of his house a single barrel country, made muzzle-loading pistol, wrapped in cloth, some gun powder, an iron rod of pistol and three live percussion caps and hand-made lead shots weighing 21/2 tolas were recovered from a special hole inside the wall of a room inside the house. This hole was three feet deep and had an opening six inches square.3. In this house lived Sughar Singh with his sons and his younger brother Pahunchi. Sughar Singh is aged 40 years and Pahunchi's age is 26.4. Both these brothers were tried for the offence under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, and were convicted by the Magistrate. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Pahunchi and maintained the conviction of Sugh...
Tag this Judgment!B. Tulsipat Ram Vs. Jagat NaraIn Mathur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All419
ORDER1. This is a revision application in an execution of decree case. The decree-holder-applicant Babu Tulsipat Ram is superior proprietor of village Puraini. He obtained on 14-6-1941 a decree from the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer Malihabad for arrears of under proprietary rent against the opposite parties, Shri Jagat Narain Mathur and Shri Tirbhawan Nath, for Rs. 1075 and future interest and costs. The decree was attempted to be realised in execution by appointment of a receiver, an order in which behalf was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer on1-4-1942 in spite of the objections of the judgment-debtors that they had applied under the Encumbered Estates Act and that the decree could not be executed in view of Section 7 of that Act. The judgment-debtors succeeded in having the order set aside by the learned District Judge in appeal on 21-9-1942, and the execution application was, therefore, consigned to records. 2. In the Encumbered Estates Act proceedings a prelimina...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Agyan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All674
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is an application by two persons, Lala Kamta Prasad and Shiva Sagar Pandey, residents of Kanpur asking the Court to take proceedings for contempt of Court, against the two opposite parties Ram Agyan and R.S. Singh, residents of Ghazipur. The applicants are concerned with a Firm Sri Ram Mahadeo Oil Mills, Kanpur : applicant 1 is one of its proprietors and applicant 2 is its Manager. Ram Agyan, opposite party 1 is the proprietor of Regal Talkies of Ghazipur and R.S. Singh, opposite party 2 is the brother of opposite party 1. On 23-4-1948 Ram Agyan, opposite party 1 purchased 14 ceiling fans and one table fan, all second hand, from Sri Ram Mahadeo Oil Mills for Rs. 1930-4-0 and paid Rs. 500 as part purchase money at once and promised to pay the balance at Ghazipur. A servant of the vendor was sent along with opposite party 1 to Ghazipur to fetch the balance. Ram Agyan, opposite party 1, gave a crossed cheque, dated 24 4-1948, for the balance of the price to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Bux and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All433
ORDERDesai, J. 1. The applicants were prosecuted alongwith Abu Turab under Sections 147 325 and 323, PenalCode. The trial Court, S. D. M. Sultanpur, convictedthe applicants and acquitted Abu Turab. Theyappealed against that decision to the SessionsJudge of Fyzabad who refused to interfere withtheir conviction of sentences, so they have comeup to this Court in revision. 2. The ground which forms the backbone ofthe revision is that the learned Sessions Judgehas not written a proper judgment in appeal.This ground is well founded and is sufficient toinvalidate the judgment. 3. The case for the prosecution in brief was asfollows: There are two step brothers Zargham AliKhan and Abu Turab who live in village Baharpur.There is no love lost between them ZaighamAli Khan let out some plots to Anand BahadurKhan who sublet them on 'betai'' to Behari. On18-3-1948, Anand Bahadur Khan and his fatherJang Bahadur Khan went to receive their sharein the produce from Behari. They were waylaidby the 16 appl...
Tag this Judgment!inder Singh Vs. Bishambhar Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All635
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment & decree of the Second Civil Judge of Meerut by which the plff.-respondent was given a decree against the applt., who was a deft, in that suit, for a sum of Rs. 11,067-13-0 on the foot of a simple mortgage bond, dated 30-10-1981. The appellant claimed the benefit of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act (U. P. Act XIII [13] of 1940) & certain provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, (U. P. Act XXVII [27] of 1934). The learned Civil Judge relying upon the provisions of Section 4, Debt Redemption Act, did not give him the benefit of that Act. Section 4 provides that the provisions of that Act will not apply to a suit for the recovery of a loan from an agriculturist where the creditor declares that if a decree is passed in his favour either for the whole or a part of the claim, such decree shall not be executed against the land, agricultural produce or person of such agriculturist. It would appear that the plff.-respondent had, i...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ram Janki and anr. Vs. Mt. Maktoola and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All633
Wanchoo, J.1. This is a second appeal by Sri Ram Janki through Baba Tribeni Das & another. The appellants were defts. in the suit which was brought by the plff. resps. The plffs. sued for cancellation of a deed of gift & for possession of the property comprised in that deed. This deed was executed by one Ram Nandan on 2-7-1942. in respect of certain property situate in village Daunri. The properties were gifted to the idola of Sri Ram Janki installed in a temple in village Daunri which is under the management of Baba Tribeni Das. The donor provided that Baba Tri beni Das would take possession of the property, manage it in the way he liked & after meeting the expenses of management, would spend the profits on the expenses of the idols. The property consisted of fixed-rate tenancy, a grove, a house & some occupancy tenancy. The deed was assailed on a number of grounds. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal on the ground that in view of...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Kulsumunnisa Vs. Mohd. Ramzan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All673
Harish Chandra, J. 1. In this case a decree for arrears of rent and ejectment was passed against the respondent with respect to a house before the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (U.P. Act in [3] of 1917) came into force. The date on which this Act came into force was according to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of that Act 1-10-1946. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and a conditional decree for ejectment was passed, the condition being that if the defendant did not deposit in Court a certain sum of money within two weeks, the ejectment was to take effect. The plaintiff-appellant went up in appeal and the Civil Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment. He, however, attached a condition that it was open to the execution Court to consider the question of default on the part of the defendant and the applicability of the District Magistrate's order in the light of a ruling reported in Makhanlal v. Shankerlal, 1944 ALL. L.W. 591. It appears th...
Tag this Judgment!M. ZiauddIn Ahmad and ors. Vs. Jagmohan Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All670
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Munshi Ziauddin and others, who were plaintiffs-in a suit instituted by them, in the Court of the Munsif of Mohammadabad Gohna at Azamgarh, against Jagmohan Ram, the defendant-respondent for obtaining (1) a perpetual injunction directing the defendant to demolish certain enclosures and walls, constructed by him on sub-plots Nos. 12 and 13, which form part of the abadi plot No. 440 in village Baragaon, in the district of Azamgarh, and to have no concern with a garhi in plot No. 887 of the same village; and (2) a decree for possession over the plots aforesaid. Admittedly, the parties are co-sharers in village Baragaon, and there has been a perfect partition in the village and the abadi plot No. 440 has also been partitioned, as a result of which different portions of it have been allotted to different mahals and khewats. 2. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of sub-plot No. 12. This claim was contested; but it is no longer disputed t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »