Allahabad Court June 1950 Judgments
Kashi Prasad Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All732
Brij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is an appeal by one Kashi Prasad who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Fatehpur of offences punishable under Sections 235 and 243, Penal Code. For each of these two offences he has been sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently.2. The appellant was charged with an offence under Section 232, Penal Code, also but he has been acquitted of that offence.3. It appears that the officer-in-charge police station Khakhreru in district Fatehpur received intimation that the residents of village Amdara were counterfeiting King's coins. He organized a raid and reached village Amdara between 6 and 6 A. M. on 28th December 1947. Several houses were searched. From one of the houses which was during that night at least in the occupation of the appellant a large quantity of materials which could be used for counterfeiting King's coins was recovered. Th...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Bashir Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All357
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application by one M. M. Bashir for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. M. M. Bashir is being, detained in jail under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV [4] of 1950). The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate of Aligarh on 27th March 1950, and the grounds of detention were communicated to the applicant soon after. On behalf of the applicant, it is urged that the detention of the applicant was illegal inter alia on the ground that the order of detention passed against him did not lay down the period for which the order of the District Magistrate was to remain in force. The original order passed by the District Magistrate wag produced in Court and it clearly showed that the District Magistrate did not lay down the period for which he had directed the detention of the applicant in the custody of the Superintendent of the District Jail, Aligarh. It was contended that since the period of detention was...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All735
ORDERSapru, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of an appeal which the applicant along with 27 others has filed before a learned Sessions Judge against the judgment of a learned Judicial Magistrate convicting the appellants under Sections 147, 323, 325/149, Penal Code, each and sentencing them each to varying terms of imprisonment and fine. The affidavit in this case has been filed by one of the applicants Lallai. According to this affidavit, when the case was called up on 11th February 1950, the learned Sessions Judge told counsel for the appellants even before he had presented the case of the appellants, that the appeal was a very weak one and was liable to be rejected. He went a little further and started dictating judgment without hearing the appellants' counsel. On his doing so, an application was moved by the appellants notifying their intention of applying to this Court under Section 526, Criminal P. C., for the transfer of the appeal and time was granted to the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Ram Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All709
Sapru, J.1. This is an application by Sri Asha Ram, a Lecturer in the Allahabad University, praying that this Court may be pleased to release him in the exercise of the powers of habeas corpus which it enjoys under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Mr. Asha Ram has been in preventive detention in pursuance of an order issued by the District Magistrate of Allahabad on 24th April 1950. This order was issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act. Section 3 (1) of that Act empowers the Central Government or the State Government to make an order directing a person to be detained if it is satisfied with respect to any person that it is essential to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to--(i) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (ii) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or (iii) the maintenance of supplies, and services essential to the community. Sub-clause (2) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukandi Lal Vs. State Through Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All212
ORDERSeth, J.1. The applicant has been convicted of an offence under Section 4, D. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200. He was tried summarily. His conviction is based on his own plea and not upon any evidence produced in the case. There is no note on the record of the case about what was stated by the applicant beyond 'pleads guilty.'2. The applicant applied in revision to the Sessions Judge of Agra which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of that place. It was contended before him that the applicant did not admit before the learned Magistrate that he had committed the offence of which he was accused and that the learned Magistrate had wrongly construed his statement as a plea of guilty. According to the applicant, the learned Magistrate only asked whether the Inspector had taken sample from the oil and the applicant replied in the affirmative, adding that it was meant for burning purposes. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is of t...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Bhagwati Vs. Bansu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All246
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appln. for revn. of an order passed by the learned Ses. J. of Gorakhpur directing commitment of a case to the Ct. of session. It appears that in this case the accused appcts. were charged with committing offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 & 326, Penal Code. All these offences are triable by a Mag. & in such a case it is the function of the Mag. to weigh the evidence, come to a finding whether there is enough evidence to frame a charge & thereafter either to proceed to complete the trial & pass an order of acquittal or conviction, or to commit the case to the Ct. of Session if the Mag. considers that it is a fit case which should be tried by the Ct. of Session. There was a cross case in which the accused persons were being tried for an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, & that case had already been committed to the Ct. of Session. The learned Mag. dealing with this case cons. the evidence & discharged the accused on the finding that no prim...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›