Allahabad Court September 1955 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.
Ram Bachan Vs. Khulbad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All334
H.S. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant arising out of a declaratory suit.2. The respondents are the inhabitants of village Murtiha Khurd, a hamlet of Krishnapur, in the district of Bahraich. This village was admittedly owned by the taluqdar of Bhinga estate. The plaintiffs filed the suit in a representative capacity for the benefit of the entire body of agriculturists and riyayas residing in village Murtiha Khurd. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that plot No. 925 which measures 2.210 acres has been used as Khalian by the inhabitants of the village for over 30 years.It was further alleged that the appellant Ram Bachan was claiming the plot in suit as a tenant under a lease said to have been executed by the taluqdar of Bhinga and in order to prevent him from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to use the land in suit as Khalian, the suit was filed. The plaintiffs also claimed fur issue of a permanent injunction to the effect that the defendant be restrai...
Rup Chand Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All399; 1956CriLJ851
ORDERRoy, J.1. The Magistrate trying this case-summarily under the powers vested in him under Section 260, Criminal P. C. passed a non-bailable sentence of fine of Rs. 100/-. The record maintained by him under Section 263 of the Code gives no indication as to what was the offence that was complained of and what, was the offence that was proved. The learned Magistrate passed the following order :'I therefore find the accused guilty and I fine him Rs. 100/-. In default to undergo R. I. for one month.'2. When the matter went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge he observed that the guilt of the applicant under Section 8, Indus-trial Statistics Act of 1942 was established, and he rejected the revision. Section 263, Criminal P. C. requires that in cases where no appeal lies, the Magistrate exercising summary powers under Section 260 of the Code need not record the evidence of the witnesses or frame a formal charge; but he shall enter the date of the commission of the offence, th...
Karan Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All159; 1956CriLJ194
Asthana, J. 1. In this case five persons, namely, Karan Singh, Subedar, Dalel, Lakhan and Ram Lal, were charged as follows:'That you on or about 14-10-1950 at about 7 p. m. in village Sarai Jawaharpur committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of Ajeet. 'That you on the same day and time were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of committing homicide not amounting to murder committed rioting, hence committed offence under Section 147, I. P. C., and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304/149, I. P. C.....' There was no separate charge against Karan Singh under S, 304 (I), I. P. C., apart from the charges which had been framed against him and the other four persons. The learned Sessions Judge after a consideration of the evidence pro-duced before him found four of the accused, namely, Subedar, Dalel, Lakhan and Ram Lal, not guilty of any of the charges framed against them. He, therefore, acquitted them.H...
Dharmendra Kumar Dikshit Vs. Superintendent of Police, Kanpur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All172
ORDERMehrotra, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari or any direction be issued to the opposite parties quashing the order of the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, dated 20-12-1952 by which he dismissed the applicant from service.2. The facts alleged in the affidavit filed along with the petition are that on 19-8-1952, the applicant, who was holding the substantive post of a head constable, was officiating as a Sub-Inspector of Police and was posted at police station ' Cantonment ' as incharge of Rail Bazar Chauki in the City of Kanpur. The allegation was that on the night between. 23rd and 24th August, 1952, the applicant along with two constables entered the house of one Nadir Hussain in mohalla Mirpur and threatened to lock him up and other inmates of the house under the Gambling Act in order to extort money from them and thereafter the applicant and the constables received money from them.On these allegations, the appli...
In Re: Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All25
Agarwala, J.1. This is a reference by the Board of Revenue under Section 57, Stamp Act. It is in respect of the stamp duty to be paid on a document dated 27-11-1947, executed on behalf of a company called the Dhampur Sugar Mills, Ltd., district Bareilly. The Dhampur Sugar Mills, Ltd., entered into an agreement with one Kunwar Murli Manohar, whereby it appointed the latter as its Managing Agent upon certain terms.The agreement was stamped with a duty of Rs. 225/- and was presented before the Collector of Bareilly on 2-12-1947, with a request that the deed may be examined and the proper stamp duty chargeable thereon may be determined. The Collector referred the case for orders to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has expressed its tentative opinion that the document is chargeable with an aggregate duty of Rs. 12,184/6/-, but as they were doubtful about their views, they have referred the matter to this Court for its opinion.2. The document recites that the two parties to the agr...
State Through Luddhur Vs. Lalta Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All73; 1956CriLJ21
Mukerji, J. 1. The above mentioned two revisions have been referred to a Division Bench because a question of law of some importance called for decision. 2. The cases, out of which these two revisions arose, were tried by Magistrates as in both cases complaints had been filed alleging that offences punishable under Section 323 and Section 440, Penal Code had been committed by the accused. In Criminal Revision No. 959 of 1953 the learned Magistrate who tried the case convicted the accused both under Section 440 and Section 323, I. P. C. The Magistrate awarded a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 440 I. P. C. and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- each under Section 323, I. P. C. In Criminal Revision No. 2036 of 1953 also the Magistrate convicted the accused both under Section 323 and Section 440 I. P. C. He awarded a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- to each accused under Section 323 and a similar sentence of .six months' rigorous im...
Ch. Shyam Sunder Vs. Daw Dayal Khanna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All79
Desai J.1. I this case we by our order of 21-7-1954 dismissed the application and directed the applicant to pay the opposite-party his costs assessed at Rs. 300/-. A formal order was prepared by the Registrar and in the memorandum of costs Rs. 300/- were shown as recoverable by the opposite party from the applicant. The Registrar then sent a copy of the formal order to the District Magistrate for compliance.The District Magistrate could not recover the sum of Rs. 300/- from the applicant, who objected to its payment to him on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to realise it. It appears that the District Magistrate had without any orders from this Court issued a warrant for recovery of the amount. Then the question arose how the amount is to be recovered from the applicant. We heard the parties and also the learned Government Advocate.2. Contempt proceedings are neither civil nor criminal but sui generis. A High Court punishes contempt of Court as a Court of record in exercise of it...
Dr. Brijendra Swarup Vs. Election Tribunal, Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All111
Randhir Singh, J. 1.This is a petition on behalf of one Dr. Brijendra Swarup who was one of the persons elected from the U.P. Graduates Constituency (West) to the U.P. Legislative Council, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Election Tribunal dated 12-1-1955 and for certain other directions to be issued to the Election Tribunal. 2. It appears that after the election of the applicant, an election petition was presented by opposite party No. 5 for the setting aside of the entire election on the ground that it was void under Section 100(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951. Certain allegations were made in this election petition and they were controverted on behalf of the applicant. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner that allegations in paras. 10 to 14 and 19 to 28 of the election petition were not material for the grant of the relief prayed for. The Election Tribunal, however, did not agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant a...
Bansraj Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All27; 1956CriLJ6
Upadhya, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, recommending that the conviction of the applicant Bansraj under Section 123 read with Section 42 of the Motor Vehicle Act be set aside. The prosecution case is that Bansraj, a driver, was found carrying 23 passengers in a public carrier while the permit allowed him to carry only 6 passengers in that vehicle. The Magistrate found him guilty and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was urged before the Sessions Judge that the applicant being a driver could not be convicted under the said provisions. Section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act runs as follows ; '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 Authori...
Ganga Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All122; 1956CriLJ181
ORDERRoy, J. 1. This is an application in revision by Ganga Singh, Hodal and Pratap, who have been convicted under Section 379, I. P. C. and each of whom has been sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous Imprisonment. The only question, which arises in revision is whether the two Courts below were justified in acting upon the evidence of identification with particular reference to the circumstances of the case in coming to the conclusion that that evidence, which was the only evidence against the applicants, was sufficient to establish the charge. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story waa as follows: On the night between the 27th and 28th of January, 1954, three cattle belonging to one Ram Chandra were stolen from his house. The matter was detected some time during the night and a party consisting of several men left the village in search of the cattle and they followed a track which indicated that the cattle had been taken in a certain direction. The party followed the footprints o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »