Allahabad Court May 1950 Judgments
GirishnaraIn Awasthy Vs. the State Through V.N. Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All355
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. These are two transfer applications by the same person, Girish Narain Avasthi, against whom two cases under Section 500, Penal Code, are pending in the Court of Shri R. P. Singh, Magistrate, 1st Class, Etawah. One complaint was brought by Shri V. N. Misra, Muncif of Etawah and criminal Miscellaneous case No. 480 of 1950 relates to that case. The other complaint was brought by Shri Kedar Nath Shukla, Secretary, District Board of Etawah and criminal Miscellaneous case No. 481 of 1950 relates to that case. The appellant, in support of his transfer applications, gave a long affidavit mentioning a large number of grounds which, according to him, gave him an apprehension that he would not get justice from the Magistrate before whom the cases are pending. During the course of arguments on these applications, the learned counsel for the applicant took me through the affidavit and, while doing so, mentioned that he would press only some of the grounds mentioned therein an...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Ali Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All459
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application by one Ahmad Ali for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Ahmad Ali is under detention under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV [4] of 1950). The main contention that has been urged in support of this application is that the grounds of detention disclosed to the applicant are vague, and no reasonable person could, on those grounds, come to a view that it was necessary to detain the applicant for the purpose of maintaining public order.2. The first ground mentioned is that the applicant indulged in fiery speeches in the month of May 1948 and thereafter he went underground and evaded his arrest. The second ground is that he held a secret meeting on the night between the 22nd and 23rd March 1949, at the residence of Ram Prasad sweeper, an absconder communist, wherein he criticised the present Government as by law established and compelled the audience to overthrow such a capitalist Government. The third gro...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All631
ORDERMisra, J.1. Babu Lal Sonar, resident of Maida Wali Gali, police station Chowk Lucknow, was convicted by a Judicial Magistrate of Lucknow of au offence under Section 411, Penal Code, for retaining stolen properties Exs. I to VII in his possession. These articles along with a large number of others totalling about 144 in number were recovered from the possession of the applicant on 20th November 1947, on search of his house in the course of investigation regarding a burglary.2. It has been held by the Courts below that four of the aforesaid articles were stolen from the house of Abdul Rahman on 1st January 19i6, and one of them, namely, EX. vII was one of the articles lost in a burglary which took place at the house of Captain Radha Krishna on the night between 5th and 6th July 1946. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Civil and Sessions Judge in appeal held that there were circumstances which indicated that the accused Babu Lal retained the articles knowing or having reas...
Tag this Judgment!indu Bhushan Ghosh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All639
ORDERKidwai, J.1. The railway track of the O. T. R. between miles 1 to 7/4 and 10 to 15 on the Gonda. Bishesharganj branch required repairs and estimates were prepared and work orders placed in August 1947, The estimated coat of the two pieces of work was Rs. 1093/- (vide. Exs. 5 and 7) and Rs. 857 (vide EXS. 4 and 6) respectively. Ram Sewak was given the contract. At that time J.N. Sanyal was the overseer in that section and it was his business to supervise the work. On 25th September 1947, Mr, Indu Bhushan Ghosh was posted as Assistant Engineer at Bahraich and the work then came under his control.2. The work began on 21st December 1947, and was finished on 24th March 1948. It was measured on the 1st, the nth and the 14th April 1948. Since the work was of a patch work nature, the only way to determine how much earth work had been done was to measure the pits that had been dug at the site to extract the earth. The contract exceeded Rs. 500/- and so the measurements ought to have been d...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Athar Rizvi Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All456
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus under Section 491, Criminal P. C., and Article 226, Constitution of India, presented on behalf of Syed Mohammad Athar Rizvi who is under detention in District Jail, Kanpur, under orders of the District Magistrate of Kanpur purported to have been passed in exercise of the powers given to him under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The first point that was initially urged in support of this application, viz., that the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was ultra vires of the Indian Parliament inasmuch as the main provisions of it were in conflict with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, has now been concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Gopalan : 1950CriLJ1383 , a Madras detenu. It has been held by a majority of the Judges of the Supreme Court in that case that except for Section 14, Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the rest of the Act is valid. This deci...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ilyas Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All615
ORDERMisra, J.1. The applicant, Mohammad Ilyas, was convicted by a first class Judicial Magistrate of Partabgarh of an offence under Section 411, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The decision was affirmed by the Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Partabgarh, and the accused has coma up to this Court in revision. The case which the Courts below have found against him is that he dishonestly retained six watches which were stolen on the night between 8th and 9th November 1949, from the shop of Abdul Raoof knowing or having reason to believe that they were stolen property.2. The report in respect of the theft was lodged by Abdul Raoof on 9th November 1949, at Partabgarh Kotwali. The evidence indicated that on 16th November 1949, Vidyadhar, head constable, who was in charge of the MacAndrew Ganj outpost was informed by the complainant that Muhammad Ilyas was trying to dispose of a watch at the house of a prostitute in Partabgarh at an inordinatel...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Jhabbu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All445
Harish Chandra, J. This appellant (SugharSingh) was identified by Arjun, Gopal. RamBharose and Bhopi. Besides this evidence, there isthe evidence of the recovery from him of a hansli,Ex. 6 and a tarain, Ex 7, which have been identifiedby Arjun and his wife as forming part of thestolen property. I have carefully examined theseornaments and compared them with the descriptionsgiven in the list of stolen property preparedby the complainant, namely, Ex. p.2, andin my view they tally with the descriptions, however,brief they may be, as given in the list. Itis, however, pointed out that their alleged identificationby the complainant and his wife is open tocriticism. The Magistrate before whom the identificationwas held has stated that he sent for someproperty of a similar description from the Tahsiland the Naib Nazir of the Tahsil brought a sealedbundle containing similar articles. The articlessaid to have been recovered from the possessionof this appellant were also brought to him in a seale...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All181
Wali Ullah, J.1. The appct., Ram Kishan, has come up in revision to this Ct. against the order of the learned Ses. J. by which his conviction under Section 6, U. P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, Act II [2] of 1947, hereinafter called the Supplies Act, has been affirmed. He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- or, in default, to undergo R. I. for two months.2. It appears that on 17-6-1947, the Dist. Mag. of Bijnor, under the delegated authority of the Provincial Govt., passed an Order (Ex. P. 7) under Section 3 (e) of the Supplies Act controlling the rate for hiring out Kolhus. It provided that a Kolhu 8' x 11' might be hired out for Rs. 86/- only for the whole sugarcane crushing season. Para. 3 of the Order provided that it would have retrospective effect from 2-12-1946. Lastly, it provided for punishment for a contravention of its provisions & added that the Ct. trying any offence against that Order might also direct that any stock in respect of which the Order had ...
Tag this Judgment!Gendan Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All403
ORDERSeth, J.1. These two references may be disposed of by the same judgment as they raise a common question of law for decision.2. The applicant in each case has been convicted under Section 123, Motor Vehicles Act, for having contravened the provisions of Section 42 (1) of the Act, which provides that:'No owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or Provincial Transport Authority authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.'3. Applicant Gendan Lal has been convicted of another offence also, but I am not concerned with that offence in the reference in his case. I am concerned only with the conviction of the applicants in these two cases under Section 42/123, Motor Vehicles Act.4. The case against both the applicants is that they contravened the terms of the particular permits issued to them by...
Tag this Judgment!Manna Vs. Ram Ghulam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All619
ORDERMisra, J.1. This criminal Revision is directed against the appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge of Unnao, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the opposite parties Ram Ghulam and Ram Charan and acquitting them of the charge under Section 504, Penal Code. The facts which were found proved by the learned Sessions Judge were as follows : (l) That Manna, complainant, was ex-communicated from the caste by a panchayat held on 8th March 1949; (2) That there was a caste dinner at 10 P. M. on the evening of the same day at the house of Manohar Teli wherein Manna also sat down to dine along with others ; and (3) That Ram Ghulam and Ram Charan asserted that Manna could not be allowed to dine with the other members of the caste in view of his ex-communication by the panchayat.2. The complainant tried to prove that the accused physically pushed him out of the caste dinner but this fact was not established to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Judge too...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »