Allahabad Court October 1958 Judgments
Raghunath Prasad Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All345; 1959CriLJ671
A.P. Srivastava, J.1. A complaint filed against the applicant under Sections 497 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code was pending in the court of the Magistrate and a part of the evidence had been recorded when the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act (Act XXVI of 1955) came into force. By that Act Section 350 of the old Code was amended in certain respects. Under the unamended section the accused had a right to claim a de novo trial in the circumstances mentioned in the section. This right of the accused has been taken away by the amendment to Section 350 made by the Amending Act.The applicant claimed a de novo trial as according to him in view of Section 116 of the Amending Act his case was governed by the unamended section. This contention was rejected by the Magistrate. He took the view that the amended section would apply and the applicant could not, on that account, claim a de novo trial. The applicant went up in revision to the Sessions Judge but that application was rejected.He ...
Tag this Judgment!Sales Tax Commissioner Vs. Sada Sukh Vyopar Mandal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1958
Reported in: [1959]10STC57(All)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDayal, J.1. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax has made a reference to this Court on 1371 reference applications before him. His referring order is dated the 30th December, 1955. One common referring order was made, as the points of law raised in those applications were mostly common and could be covered by the few questions formulated by the Judge (Revisions). Out of these 1371 references, 1318 are on the applications under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act made by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, and the remaining 53 are on the applications of different dealers. These applications for references were made in connection with a number of revisions which the various assessees had filed before the Judge (Revisions) against the assessment of sales tax made by the various Sales Tax Officers and for the consequential relief with respect to the refund of the amount of sales tax which the various applicants had deposited in the Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Khushi Ram Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All778; 1959CriLJ1388
A.N. Mulla, J.1. Khushi Ram appellant has been convicted under Section 7(i) and 7(iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Additional Sessions Judge of Bara Banki and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months under each count. The two sentences of imprisonment awarded to Khushi Ram have been made to run concurrently.2. It is not necessary to give the facts of the case at all, as I have come to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction and the case is being remanded for retrial before a competent Magistrate. I now proceed to discuss only the legal aspect involved in this case.3. The Magistrate committed tin's case to the Court of Session by his order dated the 24th July, 1956, under a misapprehension. The Magistrate observed: ''Therefore it will be seen that this is the third offence which has been committed by the accused. The pu...
Tag this Judgment!Raj NaraIn and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All315; 1959CriLJ543
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is 'whether this Court has power to revoke, review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a Criminal Revision and rehear the same? If so, in what circumstances?'2. It is common ground that there is no section of the Code of Criminal Procedure which specifically confers such power on this Court, but it is contended that the Court has an inherent power to review a judgment or order previously made by it on a criminal revision application if it considers it expedient to do so in order to secure the ends of justice, and that that power has been preserved by Section 561-A. There is authority which supports this view but, with great respect, I do not think that the argument is well founded.3. Section 561-A was introduced into the Code by the! Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1923, and it provides that'nothing in this Code be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Yusuf Abbasi Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All346; 1959CriLJ672
H.P. Asthana, J. 1. These are two writ petitions under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Mo-hammad Yusuf Abbas and Sheo Murat Singh for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of the petitioners from the District Jail, Ghazipur, where they are lodged at present. They arise out of similar facts and we, therefore, propose to decide both these writ petitions by one judgment. 2. It appears that the petitioners were arrested on 11-9-1958 in pursuance of a warrant issued by a Magistrate of the 1st Class under Section 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that there was an immediate apprehension of the breach of the peace from their side. After their arrest they were produced before the Magistrate. Notice under Section 112, Cr. P. C. was read out to them and before further proceedings could be taken against them Sheo Murat Singh made an application to the Court that further proceedings ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All534; 1959CriLJ1033
Beg, J. 1. This is an appeal by one Lakshmi who has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs 100/-; in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The appellant Lakshmi has been found guilty of having murderd his step brother Chhedi Lal on 6-10-1954 at about 8 p. m. in village Baheri, police station Girwan, district Eanda.3. The prosecution case is that the appellant was addicted to taking ganja and wine. He used to go about making demands for money from his relations. He used to beat his wife and mother. He also used to make similar demands from the deceased Chhedi Lal who was opposed to this habit of life of the appellant, and would not accede to his requests to advance to him monies to enable him to indulge in these vices. It is said that in the month of Jeth preceding the incident he had beaten his mother and wife. At that time the deceased and other persons had intervened and prevented him from doing ...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Singh Vs. State Transport Authority, Tribunal, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All253
R.N. Gurtu, J. 1. The following points have been referred to me upon a difference of opinion between my brother Tandon and my brother Nigam.(1) Does the provision in Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, that 'an application for a stage carriage permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect' require that that date shall be stated in the application or otherwise? 2. If the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, is the requirement of stating the date' mandatory or merely directory? 3. Is an application which does not mention the date not an application complying with the requirements of the first alternative mentioned in Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939) 2. The reference of these points has been made under the following circumstances. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made by Tara Singh seeking; the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Saran and anr. Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All332; 1959CriLJ663
ORDERSrivastava, J. 1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Sultanpur.2. On a report dated the 20th August, 1955, submitted by the Station Officer, Kotwali, Sultanpur, a charge has been framed against Bhagwat Saran and Srimati Sushila Devi under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 read with Section 11 B (3) of the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941. The allegation is that they sold iron and steel goods at a price higher than the controlled price.3. The accused went up in revision against the order framing the charge to the Sessions Judge and raised two points. The first point was that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence alleged as the report on the basis of which cognizance was taken did not contain sufficient materials as required by Section 11 of the Essential Supplies Act. The second point was that no maximum price having been fixed, there was no question of the accus...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish NaraIn Bhargava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All380
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these:2. The dispute is with respect to house No. 1213 situate at Bagh Muzaffar Khan, Agra, which belonged formerly to one Shri Shadi Ram Loomba, who was an engineer but retired from service sometime prior to 23-7-1953. In July 1953 he went to Bombay, where his son was in service after locking this house. His luggage nevertheless remained in the house. On 23-7-1953 the District Magistrate of Agra, who then was Shri J.M. Raina, requisitioned the said house purporting to act under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947. This section provides that:'If, in the opinion, of the District Magistrate it is necessary to requisition any accommodation for any public purpose he may, by order in writing, requisition such accommodation and may direct that the possession thereof shall be delivered to him within such period as may be specified in the order.'One of the provisions in the section furt...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Sen and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All707; 1959CriLJ1267
R.K. Chowdhary, J.1. This is an appeal by Padam Sen and Shekhar Chand of Hilwai within police station Baraut in the district of Meerut against the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge of Meerut sentencing each of them 10 rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and Rs. 500/- fine, with further & months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine, under Section 165A, I. P. C.2. Shekhar Chand appellant's father Genda Mal sued Mithan Lal P. W. 9 and the latter's brothers for money on pronotes. The Additional Munsif of Ghaziabad passed judgment on 28-7-1954, holding that the defendants had paid Rs. 7049/10/6 on the pronotes instead of the mere Rs. 4050/- admitted by the plaintiff. The offence for which the appellants have been convicted has been found by the court below to have been committed by the appellants during the pendency of that civil litigation.3. Apprehending that the plaintiff will fabricate his books of account in order to thwart the defence plea of payment ove...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »