Allahabad Court September 1953 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ganesh Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All116
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. The only point raised in this revision is that the order of the court below directing a retrial of the applicant is illegal, inasmuch as it is against the provisions of Article 20(2), Constitution of India.Article 20(2) provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. In this case, the applicant was prosecuted and convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 409, Penal Code, and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed. The learned Sessions Judge found that the trial was illegal, inasmuch as the applicant had been charged with having committed offences during a period exceeding one year. He accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the Magistrate for retrial after reframing the charge in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. It is contended that the procedure involves a prosecution of the applicant more than once.2. In my view,...
Bisuntha and ors. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All167
Chaturvedi, J.1.This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the judgment of the Panchayati Adalat Satnyao, police station Baberu, district Banda dated 5-1-1951 be quashed.2. The complaint was filed by one Sarju before the Panchayati Adalat against seventeen persons. His allegation was that the six applicants before us had given him a beating, and they along with four others had restrained him from proceeding towards his house. The allegations made in the complaint show that the six applicants were accused of having committed offences under Section 323 & also Section 341, I. P. C., but the other four were accused only of the offence under Section 341, I. P. C., that is, wrongful restraint. As stated above the complainant had mentioned seven more persons as accused before the Panchayati Adalat, but the Panchayati Adalat acquitted these seven and it will not be necessary to mention them any more in this judgment.3. A revision against the order of the Panchaya...
Ganesh Prasad, Convict Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ216
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. The only point raised in this revision is that the order of the court below directing a retrial of the applicant is illegal, inasmuch as it is against the provisions of Art 20(2), Constitution of India.Article 20(2) provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. In this case, the applicant was prosecuted and convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 409; Penal Code, and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed. The learned Sessions Judge found that the trial was illegal, inasmuch as the applicant had been charged with having committed offences during a period exceeding one year. He accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the Magistrate for retrial after reforming the charge in the light oil the observations contained in the judgment. It is contended that the procedure involves a prosecution of the applicant more than once.2. In my view, th...
Budhya Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All131
ORDERRandhir Singh, J. 1. This is an application in revision against the order of conviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate, first class, which was also upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge. 2. It appears that one Sri G.S. Chaudhary and another gentleman by the name of Sri M.P. Srivastava were robbed of some of their belongings while travelling and reports were lodged. Ultimately, some property was recovered from the possession of the applicant and two others in a search made by the police. The property recovered from the possession of the applicant was identified to be a part of the stolen property. The applicant and the other two persons, from whose possession property was recovered, were ultimately sent up for trial. A charge under Section 411, I. P. C., was framed against all three of them, but the property which was found in the possession of the other two accused who are not applicants in the present case was not identified as stolen property and they were acquitted. The p...
Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. the Surpunch, Punchaiti Adalat, Ugaipur and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All159
ORDERDesai, J. 1. The applicants have been convicted by a Panchayati Adalat under Sections 447 and 426, I.P.C. They apply for the order of the Panchayati Adalat being quashed on three grounds. The first ground is that the bench, which tried the applicants did not include any Fanch residing in the area of the Gaon sabha in which the applicants reside. The applicants, as well as the opposite-party, Shrimati Partabi, reside in village Ashrafganj & it is stated in the affidavit that the Bench did not include even one Panch from the Gaon Sabha of Ashrafganj. It is not alleged that the applicants objected to the constitution of the bench when they appeared before it. It is said that they objected to the constitution after their conviction, when they applied to the Sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act. But the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissing their application makes no reference to any objection that the bench did not include any Panch from the Gaon S...
S.P. Trivedi Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All203
ORDERRandhir Singh, J. 1. This is an application in revision against the order of a Magistrate, first class, in proceedings under Section 133, Criminal P. C. 2. A complaint was made by the District Engineer, P, W. D. Sitapur, on 11-7-1952, against the applicant to the effect that the applicant had encroached upon a piece of land 62.5 feet in length and 15 feet in breadth which formed part of the public road. It was prayed that the encroachment be ordered to be removed by the Court. 3. Notice was issued to the applicant to show cause why the obstruction should not be removed. The applicant appeared before the Magistrate and-pleaded that the piece of land on which he had made the construction did not form part of the public road and that he had purchased that piece of land by means of a sale deed. Some documents were also produced by him in support of his contention that the land belonged to him and was not a part of the public way. The learned Magistrate repelled the contention of the a...
Ram Raj Rai and ors. Vs. Chedi Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All212
ORDERChaturvedi, J. 1. This revision arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The applicants applied for redemption of an old mortgage under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. It was not disputed that the applicants were the legal representatives of the original mortgagor and th(sic) the opposite parties were the legal representative of the original mortgagee. The mortgage sought to be redeemed was executed some time before the year 1882.2. The claim for redemption was resisted on the ground that there was no subsisting mortgage and that whatever the rights which the mortgagor had in the mortgaged property were lost to him by lapse of time. In other words, it was pleaded that the right of redemption was lost by reason of Article 148, Limitation Act, which provides 60 years for redemption of mortgages. Both the Courts have held that the mortgage sought to be redeemed came into existence more than 60 years back & consequently the mortgagor had lost his r...
Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. the Surpunch, Punchaiti Adalat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ282
ORDERDesai, J.1. The applicants have been convicted by a Parichayati Adalat under Sections 447 and 426, I.P.C. They apply for the order of the Panchayati Adalat being quashed on three grounds. The first ground is that the bench, which tried the applicants did not include any Panch residing in the area of the Gaon Sabha in which the applicants reside. The applicants, as well as the opposite-party, Shrimati Partabi, reside in village Ashrafganj & it is stated in the affidavit that the Bench did not include even one Panch. from the Gaon Sabha of Ashrafganj. It is not alleged that the applicants objected to the constitution of the bench when they appeared before it. It is said that they objected to the constitution after their conviction, when they applied to the Sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act. But the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissing their application makes no reference to any objection that the bench did, not include any Panch from the Gaon...
Jai Dayal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All201
Randhir Singh, J.1. This appeal and the four connected appeals Nos. 120, 121, 122 and 123 have been heard together as they arise out of the same judgment. The appellants in Appeal No. 118 are represented by counsel while the remaining four appeals are jail appeals.2. It appears that 15 or 16 persons collected together on the Bangarmau Mallawan Road on 28-8-1951, at about 7 p. m. There was a volley-ball match at Mallawan and students who had gone to attend the match were returning after the match in the evening. Radha Ballabh passed the place where these persons sat at about 7 p. m. and he was attacked and his property was looted. He was then made to sit at a distance. Some ten minutes after, another batch of two students happened to pass and they were also likewise waylaid and looted. Some fifteen minutes after this second occurrence a third batch of students consisting of four persons, Mahendra Pratap, Shushil Kumar, Brijendra Kumar and Eirendra Singh passed on the way. These persons ...
Rameshwar Prasad Kedarnath Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All144
Sapru, J.1. While agreeing with the order proposed by my brother Mootham, I would like to point out that, having regard to the nature of our Constitution, a licence for the carrying on of a business or profession cannot be looked upon as a mere privilege which is within the unfettered discretion of the Executive Authority empowered to grant it.Particular emphasis has been laid in Article 19(1)(g) on the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject, of course, as laid down in Article 19(6), to any reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public as may be placed on it. In guaranteeing this right the founding fathers were, no doubt, influenced by their concept of the functions of the State. As is clear from the directive principles of State policy to which I think it is permissible to refer in this connection, they were establishing a State guided by certain directive principles which, though not justiciable, were, nevertheless...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »