Allahabad Court February 1959 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.
Smt. Dulari Devi Vs. Rajendra Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All711
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. These are two connected matters, one is a first appeal No. 326 of 1951 and the other is a first appeal from order No, 224 of 1951. Since both arise out of the same matter they were connected in the court below and the appeals against the orders have also been connected.2. The facts of the case are that Sheo Shankar Lal plaintiff in suit No. 41 of 1949, had three wives. Out of his union with the second wife a daughter was born. She was Smt. Bitano. She was married to Rajendra Prakash, defendant No. 1 in suit No. 41 of 1949. His sons Ramesh Chandra, Suresh Chandra and Mahesh Chandra are defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The dispute relates to a house situate in Mohalla Gudri Janwaran alias Ghamandi Mathia in the city of Farrukhabad. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he had purchased this house on 2-9-1919 from his brother-in-law.After the purchase, he obtained permission from the Municipal Board, Farrukhabad and made constructions. Six months after the execution of...
Mohammad Mansoor Vs. Hira Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All627; 1959CriLJ1135
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. A case under Sections 324 and 506 I. P. C. was instituted by the opposite party No. 1 against the applicant. When the applicant appeared in court he applied to the Magistrate for acquittal on the ground that the offence had been compromised at home. The application was not accepted by the Magistrate and he proceeded to record the evidence of the complainant and on 5-2-1958 framed a charge under Section 323 I. P. C. which is cornpoundable.Then the case was transferred to another court where the applicant applied again for acquittal onthe ground of the compromise. The Magistrate refused to go at once into the question whether the offence had been compounded or not and said that he would proceed with the trial and decide the question at the end of the trial.2. It is not understood why the Magistrate refused to decide at once the question whether there has been any compromise or not. Though tha prosecution was for the offences of Sections 324 and 508 since only a char...
C.N. Peters Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All483; 1959CriLJ924
A.N. Mulla, J. 1. Sri C. N. Peters has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.Code and sentenced to fifteen months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months by Sri K. L. Arora, Special Judge, Lucknow. The charge against the appellant is that he demanded and received illegal gratification from Kalapnath Lal Guard on 14-2-1955 at about 4 P. M. in the Guards' Running Room at Gorakhpur Railway station.2. The prosecution story is that the appellant was posted at Gorakhpur as the Claims Prevention Inspector in the North Eastern Railway. Kalapnath Lal was a Guard in the same railway with his headquarters at Gonda. On the 8th February 1955, Kalapnath had taken a goods train from Gonda to Gorakhpur and when the train reached Gorakhpur it was found that some bags were stolen away from one of the wagons in the train. A report was made to the Government Railway Police and enquires were started.The appellant who was present at Gorakhpur...
Gyanendra Nath Mittal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All634; 1959CriLJ1136
M.C. Desai, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 27 of the Drugs Act for stocking and exhibiting for sale a drug, namely, tincture zingiberis mitis which was not of standard quality. There is the report of the Government Analyst to the effect that the sample of tincture zingiberis mitis taken from the applicant's shop was substandard. Section 25 of the Act requires that the Government Analyst to whom a sample of a drug is submitted for analysis should deliver to the Inspector submitting it a signed report in the prescribed form and lays down that a document purporting to a report signed by a Government Analyst is evidence of the facts stated therein and is conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has, within 28 days of the receipt of a copy of the report, notified in writing to the Inspector or the court that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report.Rule 46 of the United Provinces Drugs Rules, 1945 lays down that after the test or a...
Ram Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All623
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. No case for interference is made out at all. The personal attendance of two of the applicants was exempted under Section 205(1) Cr. P. C., and they did not appear in court on any date and consequently were not examined by the court under Section 342, Cr. P. C. I do not consider that their non-examination in these circumstances was an illegality. It is true that under Section 342, Cr.P.C., an accused must be examined after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined, but this presupposes that he is present. There is nothing in the language of Section 342(1) to suggest that an accused, whose personal attendance has been exempted under Section 205 (1), also must be examined after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined.The exemption from the personal attendance contemplated by Section 205(1) is for the whole duration of the trial; it follows that an accused can be exempted from personal attendance even on the date on which the examination under ...
Sarju Prasad Vs. the Civil Judge of Farrukhabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All717
Srivastava J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Jagdish Sahai by which he rejected a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. It appears that prior to the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the appellant was an occupancy tenant of plot No. 208 of village Atrajpur, Tahsil Chaibramau, District Farrukhabad. The respondent No. 3 was the sub-tenant of the plot on behalf of the appellant and was entered in the papers as bila tasfia lagan. A dispute arose between the parties in respect of possession over the plot, and after proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been started, the dispute was referred to arbitration.The arbitrator decided that the appellant should have possession over half of the plot and the respondent No. 3 should have the other half, & that respondent No. 3 should be treated as a tenant on behalf of the appellant in respect of that half. In spite of the award the di...
Sadho Singh Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Jalalabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All696
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalalabad, allowing the election petition of the respondent Baboo Ram and setting aside the petitioner's election to the office of Pradhan. The facts as stated in the affidavit supporting the petition are these : The petitioner was a branch postmaster of the Post Office Jarinpur in the district of Shahjahanpur. He was drawing an allowance of Rs. 25/- per month and looked after the office. On 22-11-1955 he sent his resignation from the post and on the next day 23-11-1955 he filed his nomination for election to the post of Pradhan of the Gram Sabha, Jarinpur.He says that no abjection was filed by the respondent Baboo Ram and his nomination was accepted. On 28-11-1955 the petitioner's resignation was accepted with effect, to quote his own words, 'from 22-11-1955' but he was directed not to leave his duties till some other arrangement had been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›