Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All428
Takru, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against an appellate order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad, The facts giving rise to it are not in dispute, and, stated briefly, are as follows .2. Yaqub, the respondent, was originally a resident of Moradabad. In 1947 he went away to Pakistan where he remained till his entry into India on the 12th May, 1954, on the authority of a Pakistan Passport No. 168008 dated the 30th January 1954 and Indian Visa of the 'C' category -- No. 25804 dated 5th May 1954 -- which permitted him to stay in India for three months. Subsequentlythat period was extended upto the 10th January 1956.The respondent, however, did not leave India by that time with the result that a notice was served on him on the 2nd October 1957 requiring him to leave India within 30 days. The respondent did not comply with that notice either. He was therefore, prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946,-- hereinafter called 'the Act of 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All566
J.K. Tandon, J.1. Two questions have been raised in the grounds of appeal in this second appeal. One is that the word 'occupation' used in Section 60 C. P. C. does not necessarily require actual physical Possession by the judgment-debtor but a case of constructive pas-session by him will also be covered. The second point is about limitation which however has not been urged at the hearing.2. The decree-holder has attached a building (which has been found by the two courts below to be in a dilapidated condition) in execution of his decree against the judgment-debtor appellant. The latter thereupon came forward with an objection that this building as it has been called, was a cattle shed, that he was an agriculturist and that it was exempt from attachment and sale under Clause (c) or the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 60.The trial court rejected this objection as it came to the conclusion that the appellant was possessed of another building which he was using as his Gher whil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All636
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in this revision which is directed against an order purported to be made under Section 144 C. P. C. by the Small Cause Court, Ballia, directing restoration of money by the applicant to the opposite party. The decree in execution of which the money was realised from the opposite party was passed by the Small Cause Court, Ballia. The decree was sent for execution by that court to the court of Munsif, Buxar, outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. There the decretal amount was realised and an objection taken that the execution was time-barred was rejected. Subsequently, the opposite party moved the court at Ballia prayingfor the withdrawal of the certificate on the ground that the execution was time-barred.That application was allowed ex parte but the record doe,s not show that thereafter any order of withdrawal of the execution transferred to the Buxar court was sent to that court. Later still, the opposite party moved an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All276
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J. 1. This is a writ petition by one Kailash Nath Seth who is employed in a permanent capacity as Trains Clerk in one of the offices of the Northern Railway administration. The following facts are necessary for a correct appreciation of the matters in dispute. 2. The petitioner was employed, according to him, in a permanent capacity in the office of the Superintendent Printing & Stationery, U. P. prior to his appointment in the Railway administration. There is some controversy as regards the petitioner's claim that he was a permanent employee under the State Government in the Office of the Superintendent Printing and Stationery as the respondent Railway has not admitted the fact in so many words, but this may not detain us in this petition as the relief with which this particular allegation is concerned is being granted on agreement of the parties as shall ultimately appear. The petitioner joined the Railway administration on 9-7-1943. In due course a release order by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All109
B.N. Nigam, J.1. Nirmal Kumar Jain filed suit No. 37 of 1952 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sitapur claiming recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,750/-, i.e., a sum of Rs. 5,790/15/- on account of principal and the balance on account of interest at 3 per cent per annum from 26-8-1946 up to the date of the suit. The facts alleged were that Amar Singh and Sumer Singh had in 1922 executed a mortgage for Rs. 1,17,400/- in favour of Madho Ram and others. Out of this mortgage money Rs. 69,200/- belonged to Madho Ram, and Rs. 26,778/- were advanced by Raghubar Dayal now succeeded by defendants 1 to 3, Satya Prakash, Smt. Indra Kumari and Smt. Rajul Mani. The balance of. Rs. 21,422/- was advanced by Salik Chand defendant No. 5 and Misri Lal defendant No. 6. Madho Ram is now succeeded by his son, Nirmal Kumar Jain, the plaintiff. After Madho Ram's death, a suit for redemption of the mortgage was filed and was decreed on 18th March, 1929. Certain amounts were realised. These are not in dispute. After 1939 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All196; 1961CriLJ454
D.P. Uniyal, J.1. This is an appeal by Sarnam, Yudhister and Nairn Singh against their conviction under Section 395 I. P. C. Each of them has been sentenced to 7 years' R. I. for the aforesaid offence.2. According to the prosecution a dacoity was committed in the house of Shahzadey Singh in village Nanday Nagla, hamlet of village Radain, Police Station Kampil, on the night between the 3rd and the 4th of July 1957. It is said that nine or ten dacoits who were variously armed with guns, spears and lathis broke into the house and looted cash and valuables belonging to the complainant. The night was a dark one. When the dacoits raided the house of Shahzadey Singh, he along with his brother Mahendra Singh and Nazir Singh was sleeping at his chaupal in front of the door of the house.He heard the sound of someone opening the chain of the door whereupon he threw a challenge. Thereupon the miscreants beat him and his brother. Finding an opportunity he ran away from the place and sent a man post...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1961CriLJ327
A.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of Brij Raj Singh and Vindhyachal Rai against an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dated the 28th of September, 1956 by which he dismissed their petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The two appellants were employed as constables in the Police Department and were posted at Khudaipura Outpost, Police Station Kotwali, district Ghazipur, in October 1954. They were alleged to have beaten Head Constable Bacha Ram at the Outpost while he was performing his duty as a Head Constable. They were also alleged to be guilty of indiscipline as they had submitted applications direct to the Deputy Inspector General of Police and not through the proper channel. On these facts two charges: were framed against them under Section 7 of the Police Act.They were tried and both the charges were found established against them by the Superintendent of Police. He directed their dismissal. They went up in appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Pol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All336; 1961CriLJ802; [1961(2)FLR241]; (1961)ILLJ147All
N.U. Beg, J. 1. This judgment disposes of two Special Appeals -- Special Appeals Nos. 163 and 164 of 1960. In both these appeals the appellant is the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad Division. The respondent in Special Appeal No. 163 of 1960 is Ram Nath Gautam, and the respondent in Special Appeal No. 164 of 1960 is Ram Saran Das. These appeals were connected as they raised a common question of law. The respondents in both these appeals were tried on a criminal charge.They were convicted by the trial court. After their conviction by the trial court, the Government passed an order of dismissal as provided in Article 311(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. These orders of dismissal were passed on the ground that they had been convicted by the trial court. In appeal, however, the conviction of the respondents was set aside, and they were acquitted. In view of their acquittal, the respondents applied to be reinstated. Their applications for reinstatement were dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All103; 1961CriLJ204
V.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal in a case under Section 7/16(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The Food Inspector reached the shop of Jhamman Lal on 26-2-1958 at about 2 p.m. There were four drums of sarson oil at the shop and also mungphali oil which was exposed for sale. He asked Jhamman Lal, respondent No. 1 to give; him a sample of mustard oil. But Jhamman, Lal instead of complying with the request, of the Food, Inspector left the shop and promised to come shortly. The Food Inspector waited for some time, but Jhamman Lal did not turn up. Tota Ram, who appears to have been also sitting on the shop was then asked by the Food Inspector to supply the sample. He said that sample could only be given by Jhamman Lal and that he was going to call Jhamman Lal. He also left the shop. The Food Inspector waited for an hour and a half, but neither Tota Ram nor Jhamman Lal came: back. The Food Inspector had gone with witnesses Bhola (P. W. 3), Ram Samp, Rafi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All115; 1961CriLJ210
Srivastava, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Bijnor by which he acquitted the respondent Ashfaq Ahmad in respect of an offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946.2. The facts leading up to this appeal are not disputed. The respondent Ashfaq Ahmad was a Pakistani national. He came to India under a passport No. 348864 dated the 7th of August 1955 issued in his favour by the Government of Pakistan. The High Commissioner for India in Pakistan granted him the necessary visa which permitted him to stay in India till the 19th of January 1956. On the basis of that passport and visa he entered India on the 2nd of November 1955. The visa was extended first till the 14th of March 1956, then to the 13th of June 1956, then to the 13th of September 1956, and lastly till the 29th of October 1956.At the time of the last extension of the visa the time limit fixed for his exit from India was extended to the 1st of November 1956....
Tag this Judgment!