Allahabad Court May 1952 Judgments
The State Vs. Baijnath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All191
ORDERBeg, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Bara Banki for quashing the order of commitment made by the Judicial Officer of Fatehpur against twenty-two, accused. This reference has been made under the following circumstances :2. The twenty-two accused committed to the court of session were initially tried by the committing Magistrate who started proceedings in the case against them not as a court of enquiry but as a trial court. He treated the case as a warrant case. Accordingly he framed a charge on 9th January 1951 under Section 254. After the proceedings had been gone through up to a certain stage it was pointed out to him that one of the offences for which the accused were being tried was that under Section 330 which was exclusively triable by the court of session. Thereupon the court proceeded under Section 347, Criminal P. C. but failed to observe the provisions of Ch. XVIII in so far as he omitted to frame a charge under Section 210, Criminal P. C. H...
Tag this Judgment!Jageshwar Dayal and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All933
Beg, J. 1. This is a revision filed by Jageshwar Dayal, Kamla Prasad, Kamla Kant and Nathu, who have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100/- fine, in default six months' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 332, Penal Code. Nathu has been further sentenced under Section 323, Penal Code, to six months' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. The case against these applicants was that on 8-9-1949, at about 5 P.M. they beat the Naib Tahsildar Sri Lakshmi Narain, when he was returning after his work from the Tahsil to his house. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Naib Tahsildar Sri Lakshmi Narain had made a report against the patwari Jageshwar Dayal, as a result of which Jageshwar Dayal had been suspended. As a consequence of this report and his suspension Jageshwar Dayal was harbouring ill will against him, and along with the other three accused Kamta Pershad, Kamla Kant and Nathu attacked Lakshmi Narain and caused injuries on him. Deolok ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. State, Through Jai NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All878
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Criminal P. C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Agra recommending that the conviction of Ram Prasad Vaidya and four others recorded by a learned Magistrate, first class, of Agra, under Section 297/149 'be set aside and the parties be directed to seek redress in the proper civil Courts if they are so advised'.2. A complaint was filed by two persons, viz. Sidh Behari and Jai Narain, against Earn Prasad Vaidya and his four campanions, charging them with having committed offences punishable under 'Sections 295/297/147/149, Indian Penal Code' Sidh Behari described himself as the manager and trustee of a temple and Jai Narain called himself a Pujari thereof. It was alleged that the accused persons had forcibly entered the temple on 17-9-1948, dug out the Singhasan and the platform and thrown away the idols.2a. The defence was that the building in question was not a temple but a private house which had been sol...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Behari and ors. Vs. State Through the Special Manager, Court of Wa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All153
Beg, J. 1. These are three applications, one of which is an application for contempt of Court against the Special Manager, Court of Wards, Sitapur incharge Rampur Mathura estate (Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 479 of 1951) and other two are applications for the transfer of two cases pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sidhauli, district Sitapur (Criminal Misc. Applns. Nos. 477 and 478 of 1951). The circumstances which have given rise to these applications may be briefly stated as follows: 2. Rampur Mathura estate and Kapurthala estate in Avadh are separated by the river Gogra which constantly changes its course. On account of alluvion and diluvion disputes constantly arise regarding the boundaries of the two estates. Rampur Mathura estate is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and Sri Balbir Saran Das was the Special Manager of the Court of Wards in the month of October 1951. One Mitunjai Bakhsh Singh, who alleged himself to be the tenant of certain plots situa...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All725
ORDERBeg, J.1. One Mathura Kahar filed a complaint against Ram Nath Bhurji, his wife Shrimati Seeta, and Pyarey, Barsati and Kisnori servants of Ram Nath, Mathura belongs to Azamgarh District and came to Lucknow about 4 or 5 years ago and got employed in the shop of Ram-nath at Kaiserbagh. It is alleged that one year previous to the alleged incident, he opened his own private business and constructed a shop close to Jai Hind Cinema on the Bisheshwar Nath Road. The case of Mathura was that the plot of land on which his shop was built was acquired by him through Ramnath, who fraudulently got the lease executed in his own name. According to his allegations, on 25-4-1951, at about 11 A.M. all the five persons mentioned above formed an unlawful assembly for the purpose of dispossessing him. They went to his shop, beat him and his brother Ramai and took forcible possession of his shop.2. The defence of the accused was that the shop belonged to them, that the rent receipts of the shop were in...
Tag this Judgment!Bhushan Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All866
Agarwala, J.1. Two questions have been referred to this Full Bench :(1) Whether Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, XXIV [24] of 1946, or any part thereof are ultra vires of the Indian Legislature which passed the Act? (2) If the provisions of any of these sections be ultra vires, whether that affects the validity of the entire Act or not. 2. The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, XXIV [24] of 1946 was passed by the Central Legislature as it was constituted under the Government of India Act, 1935. Under entries 27 and 29 of List 2 of the Government of India Act trade and commerce within the province and production, supply and distribution of goods were Provincial subjects. By the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946, 9 and 10, George VI, Chap. 39, the Central Legislature was empowered to make laws with respect to trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of, certain specified goods. In exercise of the po...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup Vs. Sm. Gayatri Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All863
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 in a suit for ejectment from a house and arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 50 a month for the period from March to June 1949. The main grounds on which the relief for ejectment was prayed for were that the defendants had been guilty of wilful default in the payment of rent within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 3, U.P. Temporary Rent Control and Eviction Act III [3] of 1947 and that they had sublet a portion of the house to a third party without any right. 2. On 14-9-1948 the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendants demanding rent for the months of July and August 1948, and on or about 13-10-1948 the defendants sent a money order to the plaintiff for Rs. 62/8/- after debiting Rs. 37/8- alleged to have been paid by them as house and water taxes. That is to say, the defendants by this remittance intended to pay a total sum of Rs. 100 and it was clearly mentioned in the money order form that this was for the months of August and...
Tag this Judgment!Governor General in Council and ors. Vs. Mahabir Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All891
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J. 1. Having regard to the conflict of authorities on the interpretation of Section 77, Railways Act we have arrived at the conclusion that this case should be referred to a Full Bench. 2. Briefly the facts are that two consignments, one of 246 bags and the second of 316 bags--total 562 bags of rice were made from the railway station Canning on the Bengal and Assam Railway to Dohrighat on the O. T. Railway on the 30th and 31-7-1942. These consignments never reached the hands of the plaintiffs and then they instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 9,500 as compensation. Learned Civil Judge had decreed the claim for Rs. 8,072-10-3 only. 3. One of the points raised in defence was that notice under Section 77, Railways Act had, not been given in the manner provided in Section 140 of the said Act to the three railways administrations namely: The Bengal and Assam Railway, the Best Indian Railway and the O.T. Railway. The contention on behalf of the plaintiffs-respond...
Tag this Judgment!Jaddu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All873
Beg, J.1. Five persons, namely Jaddu, Mangal, Ram Naresh, Sadal and Sukhai, were convicted under Section 15, U.P. Private Forests Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No VI of 1949) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each by Sri Shah Masud Alam, Magistrate first class, Gonda. The aforementioned applicants went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda, and the sole point that was agitated before him was that the trial of the applicants by the first class Magistrate being in contravention of Section 15, U.P. Private Forests Act, 1948, was ultra vires and void. The learned Sessions Judge accepted this argument and has made a reference to this Court for quashing the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate against the applicants and for ordering a fresh trial of the case.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of opinion that this reference must be accepted. Section 15 (2), U. P. Private Forests Act prescribes the forum for the trial of such offe...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar Upadhya Vs. Lakshmi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All106
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a decree-holders' appeal and it raises only a question of limitation.2. The suit in which the decree was passed had been filed in the Court of the City Munsif Azamgarh. It was then transferred to the Additional Munsif who later became Munsif Haveli, Azamgarh. As Munsif Haveli he passed the decree in question on 28-8-1942. The decree was affirmed in appeal on 3-6-1943.3. On 23-10-1945, the decree-holders made their first application for execution in the Court of the City Munsif, Azamgarh, instead of in the Court which had passed the decree, namely that of the Munsif Haveli, Azamgarh. The judgment-debtor objected to this application on several grounds, though not on the ground that the Munsif City Azamgarh had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. On 12-12-1945 the said application for execution was dismissed for default.4. On 13-2-1946 the decree-holders made their second application for execution again in the Court of the City Munsif Azamgarh. Then also obj...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »