Allahabad Court August 1956 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.
Mohammadi Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ275
ORDERDesai, J.1. The applicant lias challenged his conviction on the sole ground that he was not charged as a previous convict in compliance with the provisions of Section 221 (7), Cr. P. C.2. All that is laid down in Section 221 (7) of the Code is that:If the accused having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge.The applicant was tried for an offence of 380, I. P. C. which is punishable with an imprisonment for seven years. He was tried before a Magistrate who could inflict an imprisonment extending to two years only. Under Section 75 of the Penal Code,whoever having been convicted of an offence punishable...
Rahat Ali Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ116
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge forfeiting the sureties of the accused who did not appear before the Court when he was trying the case. It appears that the accused had given surety bond when he was released on bail in the Court of the Magistrate, but later on he was ordered to be re-leased on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 560/- each by the Sessions Judge. No further surety bond was executed by the applicant and the old surety bond continued. That was strictly not very correct and there should have been another surety bond executed by the accused.2. The accused did not come on the date of hearing and appears to have migrated to Pakistan. Thereupon the sureties were asked to produce the accused. But they failed to produce the accused and, therefore, their sureties were forfeited, one of the sureties, Rabat All, has come up in revision to this Court.3. The contention of learned Counsel for the ...
Ram Sarup and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ269
ORDERRoy, J.1. This revision raises a question as to the powers of the appellate Court under Section 406 of the Code or Criminal Procedure. The applicants were bound over by a Magistrate of the first class of Bulandshahr to keep peace under Section 107, Cr.P.C., on the 15th of January, 1955. The security and the required bonds were furnished on the 18th of January, 1955. They, however, appealed to the Court of Session which directed on the 17th of February, 1955, that the order binding over the applicants should be reversed, and that there should be a retrial. The question is whether the appellate Court has the power under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order a retrial.The authority given to the appellate Court is contained in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 423. In an appeal from order the appellate Court may alter or reverse such order and make any amendment or consequential or incidental order that may be just and proper. Under Clause (b) of Section 423, in an appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›