Allahabad Court April 1958 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.
Municipal Board, Lucknow Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All500; 1959CriLJ930
Gurtu, J.1. One Bhagwan Das was convicted under Section 7, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No. XXXVII of 1954) and sentenced under Si 16 thereof to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months, the case against him being that he had sold adulterated 'Kali Mirch' to Sri B. C. Dass, Food Inspector, appointed under the said Act.2. Bhagwan Dass appealed to the learned Ses-sions judge who by his order dated 10-8-1956 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of Bhagwan Dass. The Municipal Board through its Medical Officer of Health and the Administrator who was complainant in the case preferred an application under Section 417(3), Cr. P.C. for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. This application was made on 17-10-1956. Along with the application were filed copies of the judgments of the learned Magistrate and of the learned Sessions Judge.When this application for leave was taken upbefore us le...
Firm Ram Prasad Banwarilal Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Moradabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All878; [1959]10STC48(All)
V. Bhargava, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a dealer in foodgrains, a commodity sales of which are liable to sales tax under Section 3 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. By a notification issued on 30-9-1956 under sec. 4 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, as amended from time to time, the State Government directed that the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act shall not apply to sale of foodgrains on certain conditions. The principal condition was that the dealer concerned must obtain an exemption certificate after paying fees laid down in that notification.The amount of fees payable depended on the amount of turnover of the dealer. It was first contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this notification issued by the State Government fell under the provisions of Clause (a) of Section 4 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. In our opinion, this is not so. The notification does not exempt sales of f...
In Re: State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All69; 1959CriLJ16
A.N. Mulla, J. 1. This is in application under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh praying that certain observations made by a Bench of this Courtin Prayag Bux and another v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 1956) be expunged. The remarks sought to be expunged are as follows: 'It is surprising that where the obvious answer hits one in the eye, that is disregarded and a fantastic explanation is sought. It seems very probable to us that some of the members of the Assembly act like truant students and their proxies are filled by their friends. It is for the State to consider whether the representatives of the people should be selected from such a group who act in such a manner. Such conduct is bound to corrupt the entire administration. The entry was obviously made so that Sri Bhagwati Prasad Shukla although he was not present in Lucknow should be able to secure economic gain by being marked present in the register but this explanation was not accepted by the poli...
Radhey Raman Saksena Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All135
R. N. Gurtu, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Con-stitution of India, by Radhey Raman Saxena.2. The petitioner by this petition as was explained to us orally by counsel in effect seeks the following reliefs :'1. that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the order of reversion dated 9-2-1956, passed against the petitioner whereby he was reverted from the post of officiating Secretary, Legislative Assembly to his substantive post of Superintendent, Legislative Assembly.2. that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the recommendations made by the Public Services Commission for filling up the post of Secretary Legislative Assembly permanently and a direction to be issued preventing the implementation of the said recommendation by the Government and directing them to implement the Speaker's recommendation regarding petitioner's confirmation to the post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly made before petitioner's reversion.'2a. The admitted facts are that t...
Lalmani Singh Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ356All
J. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a peon in the octroi department of the Chunar Municipal Board, district Mirzapur, hereinafter referred to as the board. He worked assuch till 14 September 1953. On 15 September 1953, he was implicated in a murder case (under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, in which he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Mirzapur, on 2 September 1954. He was put under suspension on 17 September 1953. On 27 June 1955, the board passed a resolution dismissing the petitioner from the date of suspension and the president of the board communicated that order to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government, which was dismissed, and the petitioner was informed about the dismissal on 29 December 1955. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application before the State Government, which was rejected on 30 July 1956. Thereafter the present petition was filed in this Court on 5 November 1956. The petitioner has prayed for a wri...
State Vs. YasIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All861; 1958CriLJ1449
J.N. Takru, J. 1. These two references by the learned Sessions Judge of Gyanpur arise out of cross-cases and raise two common questions of law, namely (1) whether under Section 207 A (4), Criminal P. C., a committal order which is based upon an examination of some and not all of witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged is illegal? and (2) whether the prosecution in such a case are precluded from examining in the Court of Sessions a witness who was not examined in the committing Court? 2. Both the references first came up for hearing before our brother Sahai, who referred them to a Division Bench in view of the importance of the questions of law involved therein. 3. The facts giving rise to the said references are as follows : At about 7-30 o'clock in the morning of 14-11-1956 a lathi fight took place between two factions in the village of Ahimanpur police station Aurai, district Varanasi. Both the parties to the fight lodged reports with the police, which investigated ...
Jai Shanker Hajela Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All741; (1959)IILLJ165All
M.C. Desai, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us :'Is a reversion from a temporary or officiating higher grade to a substantive post a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 irrespective of the fact whether the reversion was for some fault of the person reverted or otherwise?'2. Though we are called upon to answer an abstract question of law, it is necessary to state the material facts giving rise to the question. The appellant was a civil servant; he commenced his service as a Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools in 1927. In 1948 he was appointed to officiate as a Deputy Inspector.A dispute arose between him and the State over the pay admissible to him as officiating Deputy Inspector and while the dispute was going on lie was transferred from Bahraich to Ghazipur on account of complaints of insolent behaviour and insubordination. He handed over charge at Bahraich but refused to take over charge at Ghazipur so long as the dispute about his pay was not settled.He...
Gore Lal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All667; 1958CriLJ1107
ORDERB.R. James, J. 1. Certain persons were tried before the Sessions Judge of Mirzapur for offences under Sections 307, 324 and 148, I. P. C. found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. They appealed to this Court and were released on bail for the pendency of the appeal. The appeal came up for hearing before me. Dismissing it I maintained their conviction and sentences and ordered them to surrender forthwith. After duly surrendering they applied under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for the grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court. The required certificate was granted by me. They now pray for bail for the pendency of their appeal before the Supreme Court. 2. The case raises the question; does the High Court possess the power to grant bail to a convict, or suspend the execution of his sentence, after it has granted him a certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c), or indeed under Article 132(1). The question is of considerable importance inasmuch as it...
Smt. Triveni Devi Vs. Smt. Sharda Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All773
ORDERD.N. Roy, J.1. This is an application in revision by Smt. Triveni Devi arising out of an order dated 14th of October, 1957, The circumstances leading up to this application are these. One Raghunath Prasad died on 1st of April, 1956, leaving the petitioner as his widow and three other minor daughters, besides one major daughter, as his heirs. He left an amount of Rs. 7,200/- as principal and certain sum as interest in the savings bank account. The widow applied for a succession certificate in her own name. As the interest of three minor daughters was involved, a conditional certificate was granted to her that she would be entitled to deal with the money only with the permission of the Court. 2. The petitioner then filed an application in review pleading that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act were not brought to the notice of the Judge at the time the conditional order was passed. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that she took the entire estate absolutely, even ...
Sher Khan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1958All733
O.H. Mootham, C.J. 1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Srivastava, J., and I agree, for the reasons given by him, that the case of Bansraj v. State : AIR1956All27 , vras rightly decided and that the question referred to this Bench should be answered in the manner which he proposes. The view taken in Bansraj v. State (A), has not been accepted by other High Courts, but I venture to think, with all respect, that in none of the cases in which that decision has been considered has any logical answer been given to the reasoning upon which that decision is founded.2. Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act (as it stood prior to its amendment by Act No. 100 of 1956) is not a well drafted section and accordingly presents difficulties in construction. I think however that, properly construed, it can have only the meaning which found favour in Bansraj v. State (A). If however (as has been suggested) the section is ambiguous --I do not think it is -- then in my opinion t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »