Allahabad Court June 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.
Ram Nandan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All11
ORDERA.P. Srivastava, J.1. This application in revision raises an interesting point of law which does not appear to be covered by any direct authority. Three persons Ram Nandan, Chhedi and Sankatha Singh were first tried by a Magistrate first class under the Essential Commodities Act for contravention ofS. 3 of the U. P. Coal Control Order, 1955. The trial was a summary one.After the trial was over it was pointed out on behalf of the accused persons that a summary trial was not permitted by the Act. The learned Magistrate conceded the force of this objection and felt that he could not at that stage restart the proceedings and try the accused in a regular manner. He, therefore, acquitted the accused persons. Subsequently they were challenged again for the same offence and this time they were going to be tried in the regular manner.They raised an objection before the Magistrate who was trying them and pleaded that as they had been formerly acquitted of the same offence, the second trial ...
Tilka and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All543; 1959CriLJ1035
ORDERA.P. Srivastava, J. 1. The applicants made a certain complaint against one Munshi Singh, a police officer, and on the basis of that complaint Munshi Singh was tried under Section 7 of the Police Act. Certain witnesses were examined in that case and deposed about certain incidents. Subsequently the applicants were challaned for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323, 325 and 332 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and the same witnesses who had been examined in the proceedings under Section 7 were examined in the criminal trial. The applicants wanted to cross-examine those witnesses on the basis of their previous statements made in the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act as it was their case that the witnesses while giving evidence at the trial were stating things, which were directly contradictory to what they had stated in the course of the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act. For the purpose of confronting the witnesses with their previous statements and in...
Sheo Bilas and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All14; 1959CriLJ2
A.P. Srivastava, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Kanpur. Shiv Bilas was the owner of a cyele. He sold it first to Chandramaul and then sold it again to Babu Ram. He executed, a receipt first in favour of Chandramaul and then executed another receipt in favour of Babu Ram, in respect of the same cycle. Armed with his re-ceipt Babu Ram made a report to the police that his cycle had been stolen away. The cycle was recovered from the possession of Chandramaul. During investigation Chandramaul satisfied the police that he had purchased the cycle from Shiv Bilas and that there was no question of his stealing it. The police therefore submitted a final report. On the basis of what had! been disclosed during investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet against Shiv Bilas and Babit Ram under Sections 426 and 468, read with Section 109, I. P. C. The Magistrate, found that though no case had been made out under Sections 426 and 468, read with Section 109, I. P. C. Shiv...
Nizam UddIn Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959All19; 1959CriLJ4
ORDERA.P. Srivastava, J. 1. The applicant was convicted by a Magistrate First Class of Shahjahanpur under Section 5 of the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949, and sentenced to six months' R.I. He went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge who upheld his conviction but reduced the sentence to three months' R.I. He has now come up to this Court in revision. 2. The facts which have been found against the applicant by both the courts below are that he entered India without a valid permit from West Pakistan in April 1952 where he had gone in 1950. 3. The defence which the applicant had set up was that he had not entered India from West Pakistan, but that he had gone to Dacca in East Pakistan with his family in April 1950 and that he returned in 1952 from that place. He probably wanted exemption under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 31 of the Permit System Rules, 1949, on the ground that he had come from East Pakistan. This defence of his was, however, rejected. 4. Three contentions have been presse...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›