Allahabad Court November 1960 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.
Gopal Das Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ685
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. It is a finding of fact that the shop of the applicant was raided by a Food Inspector, who took a sample of ghee exposed for sale in it and that at that time one Hanuman Das was in charge of the shop and the applicant was absent. It is also a finding of tact that the sample contained adulterated ghee. Both the applicant and Hanuman Das were prosecuted and both have been convicted.2. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge of Mathura with the recommendation that the conviction of the applicant be quashed on the (sole) ground that no notice was given to him by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provision of Section 11(1)(a) of the Food Adulteration Act. There was also a question before the courts below whether Hanumandas sold the sample as his own property or on his own behalf or as a servant or agent of the applicant. The Magistrate rightly came to the cone us on that he acted as a servant or agent of the applicant and did not expose the ghee as s...
Jai Prakash Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All377; 1961CriLJ53
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. This is an application for revisionof an order passed by a 1st class Magistrate on 15-4-1959 summoning the applicant to stand trial as an accused. On a warrant issued by Magistrate under Section 5 of the U. P, Public Gambling Act the applicant's house was searched by the Police and he was arrested and some instruments of gaming were seized from the house. After the arrest the police made a report in the general diary mentioning the result of the search.This report in the general diary was treated as the first information report and was investigated by a police officer without any order from a Magistrate. After investigation the investigating officer submitted a report on the prescribed form to a Magistrate for prosecution of the applicant for the offences of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on the report and started the applicant's trial.On one of the dates, i. e,, 14-3-1959, the prose-cution witnesses were absent and the...
S.N. Tangri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All542
Tandon, J.1. The petitioner Sri S. N. Tangri is a resident of Lucknow. He was detained by an order dated the 8th August, 1960, passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, under Sub-clause (ii) of clause fa) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The detention order was executed, so is the allegation of the petitioner, while he was present in front of the Filmistan Cinema situate at Hazratganj, Lucknow.This was done by Ran Bahadur Singh Station Officer. Police Station, Hazratganj. According to the petitioner though he was taken in custody at the place mentioned by the abovenamed police officer, the said police officer failed to show him the warrant of arrest which might have been issued by any competent authority. His allegation further is that after his arrest he was taken to the police station, Hazratganj, where he was served with the detention order issued by the District Magistrate.2. Consequent upon his detention the petitioner had been served by the District Magistrat...
Ganga Ram Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ447
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The applicant Ganga Ram in this case and his brother Sarju Prasad who is applicant in the connected case have been convicted under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for contravening the provisions of Section 7(i) of the same Act. It is admitted that the two applicants form a partnership, which owns a shop in which mustard oil is sold and that at the moment when a food inspector took a sample of mustard oil only Ganga Ram was present, The sample was analysed and was found to contain a foreign ingredient which made: the mustard oil adulterated food.2. There is nothing to be said against the conviction of Ganga Ram on merits. The sentence of Rs. 300/- fine cannot be said to be excessive at all. Such an offence deserves severe punishment. The only question raised on his behalf was that he did not contravene Rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Under this provision selling an admixture of two or more edible oils as edible oil is ...
Madan Lal Chawla Vs. the Principal, Harcourt Butler Technological Inst ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1962All166
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one Madan Lal Chawla who, according to him, was a displaced person and originally belonged to West Punjab. He settled in Kanpur in 1951. He was appointed on 21-5-1951 as clerk at the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur, which is an institute owned and run by the Government, by the Director of Industries, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. He was promoted to the post of stenographer and was declared provisional substantive stenographer'. According to the petitioner his work was very satisfactory and was appreciated and that be was awarded a special prize. The petitioner was working directly under the Principal, Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur at the time the present incident arose. He never gave, according to him, any cause for a single warning to be issued against him and his service roll and record contain nothing but only good entries.2. A communication was received by the petitioner...
Raghubar Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Phoolmati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1962All122
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' application under Section 115 of the C. P. C., against an order rejecting their prayer to amend the plaint.The plaintiff applicants Raghubar Singh and others filed a suit against defendant-respondent, Laxmi Narain, for his ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. They alleged that they had let out the accommodation in dispute to the defendant who had failed to pay rent. The defendant contested the suit and denied that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property. In so far as this plea in defence is relevant, it denies the plaintiffs' title as the landlord of the tenant. The court has framed the following issue on this part of the case:'Whether there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.'After the framing of the issues the plaintiffs made an application for amendment of the prayer and added a prayer for declaration of their title and ownership. The trial court held that the suit was for ejectment and the a...
Prem NaraIn Gupta and ors. Vs. Shiva Prasad Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ801
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The applicants challenge an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Budaun setting aside under Section 436, Cri.P.C. an order passed by a Magistrate 1st Class discharging them. The applicants were prosecuted for the offences of Sections 420 and 406. I.P.C. The gist of the complaint was that they entered into a contract with the complainant -opposite party for sale of jute of a certain quality, realised its price and later delivered jute of an inferior quality to his order. All the applicants appeared before the Magistrate on 9.12.1958 and the case was adjourned for prosecution evidence to 7.2.1959. On that date the opposite party was absent and though the Magistrate excused his absence (at his counsel's request), he did not proceed with the case but adjourned it to 14.2.1959 just for hearing arguments on the question whether the personal attendance of some of the applicants should be dispensed with or not. There was no reason for his not deciding this question on 7....
State of U.P. Government Vs. Sham Sundar Ram Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All418
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh against the decree of the learned Civil Judge Farrukhabad directing the Government to refund a sum of Rs. 500/-which was donated by the plaintiff respondent M/s Sham Sunder Lal Ram Charan in the year 1945. The facts are these : In March 1945 several meetings Were held in Farrukhabad under the authority of the District Magistrate at which an appeal was made to the public to subscribe to a fund for the erection of a women's hospital at Chhibramau.The plaintiff firm contributed a sum of Rs. 500/-towards this fund and paid the amount in cash on 1st June, 1945. It was alleged by the firm that subsequently they came to know that the scheme for the construction of the hospital had been abandoned. Thereupon it wrote to the Government asking for the refund of their money which had been donated according to them on the express understanding that it would be utilised for the purpose of erecting a a hospital. On 6t...
Sri Ram Tandon Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. and V.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR689(All)
The judgment to the court was delivered byUPADHYA, J. - The questions referred for the opinion of this court are :'1. Whether the proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act are legal and valid ?2. Whether there was material for the finding that rupees ten thousand out of forty-five thousands realised by the assessee by encashment of 45 high denomination notes on January 18, 1946, represented the income of the assessee liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family doing financing work and was the Government Treasurer at Shahjehanpur. The original assessment for the year 1947-48 was made on an income of Rs. 12,588. Thereafter the Income-tax Officer started proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act as he got information that the assessee had encashed high denomination notes for Rs. 45,000, on January 18, 1946, which date fell within the relevant previous year of the assessee. On being required to explain how he came by these note...
Lala Ram Pradhan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ686
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. This application by Lala Ram (Pradhan of the Gaon Samaj of village Sahpur Gosna, district Mathura) and Jai Prasad (Lekhpal and secretary of the said Gaon Samaj) is directed against the orders of a first class Magistrate of Mathura rejecting their preliminary objections to a complaint under Sections 466, 468 and 471 I.P.C. that has been filed against them by the opposite-party Bhikki.2. The allegations put forward by Bhikki in his complaint are that the two accused prepared records evidencing a fictitious auction of the land of a certain pond and purporting to show that the complainant gave the highest bid at the auction This was done, it is suggested, in order to make out that the complainant was in possession of the aforesaid pond as an auction-purchaser for a limited period and not on a permanent basis as a tenant.3. The preliminary objection put forward by the applicants, which is being pressed in the present application, is that before they could be prosecuted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »