Allahabad Court April 1961 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.
Niazu Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ123
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. Niazu, the applicant in this criminal revision, his been convicted by a first class Magistrate of Muzalfarnugar for an offence Under Section 19(1) Arms Act and has been sentenced to one years' R. I. His conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Muzaffamagar.2. The prosecution allegations were that at 10 a.m. on 13-6-1960 a Sub-Inspector of Police accompanied by three constables happened to pass through the village of Shanjjur, and saw the accused Niazu sitting near the culvert of a water channel by the roadside, that the accused rau away on seeing 'the police approach but was chased and arrested, and that when he was searched after his arrest, an unlicensed pistol and two live cartridge were recovered from a 'hula' which was found in his possession.3. The sole argument advanced on behalf of the applicant in this revision is that the prosecution allegations disclose an offence Under Section 20 of the Arms Act and that consequently the...
State of U.P. Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn Singhal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962All137
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. Sri. M. C. Gupta, City Magistrate of Moradabad, asks for action to be taken againstthe respondent Laxmi Narain Singhal for contempt of court in respect of a notice under Section 80 C. P. C. Which he served on the Magistrate on 8-3-1960, while a case under Section 107 Cr. P. C. was pending against him in the Magistrate's court.2. The basic facts of the case are as follows. On 9-2-1960 the Magistrate passed orders against Laxmi Narain Singhal under Section 117 (3) Cr. P. C. requiring him to furnish an interim personal bond for Rs. 1,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,000/-each for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the . inquiry and directing that he be detained in custody until such bonds were executed. Two sureties were produced that very day, but the learned Magistrate was not satisfied that they were either reliable or solvent and after making certain inquiries, postponed the matter to the following day (10-2-1960) for arguments. On that day, however, fresh ...
Shri Amarsingh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR573(All)
BHARGAVA J. - The question referred for our opinion is :'Whether in the circumstances of this case, the fact that forestry operations of kind and nature referred to in paragraph 5 above were conducted by the assessee, is sufficient to make the income from the sale of standing sal trees which were cut and sold and about the planting and growth of which there is no evidence agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act ?'In paragraph 5 of the statement of the case it was mentioned by the Tribunal that there was no evidence that the sal trees in question were the result of any planting of seeds or saplings and consequently the Tribunal drew the inference that they were trees of spontaneous growth. This inference was also based on the common knowledge that sal trees all over the country normally grow up spontaneously. The main operations which the assessee was found to be performing for earning the income from the trees were to cut the trees at a height of 6 ...
The U.P. State Vs. Murtaza Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1961All477
Desai, C.J.1. I agree with my brother Dwivedi that the regulations published in Notification No. 6471/XI-226-46, dated the 29th November, 1946, and printed at p. 654 of the Municipal Manual, Uttar Pradesh, Vol. I, 1952, are, in their application to an executive officer of a municipal board, ultra vires the State Government. Since we are overruling a decision of our brother Tandon, I consider it necessary to add a few words of my own.2. The Municipalities Act contains different provisions regarding appointment, punishment, dismissal etc. of different classes of officers and servants, and it is by no means certain that the impugned regulations are meant to govern the dismissal, removal or reduction of an executive officer. The provision 'every order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be in writing' means that the regulations govern the dismissal, removal or reduction by an 'order' and not by a 'resolution' of the board.An executive officer is liable to be punished, dismissed or rem...
Ranjit Ram Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1961All456; 1961CriLJ306
Desai, C.J. 1. I agree with my brother Uniyal, whose judgment I had the advantage to read, that the second question must be answered in the negative. Since the question is an important one, I would briefly state my reasons. The rule of exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the English law is not regarded as a part of the law of the land of Magna Charta or the due process of law but is regarded as separate from, and independent of, due process and came into existence not as an essential part of due process but as 'a wise and beneficent rule of evidence developed in the course of judicial decision'.The wisdom of the exemption has never been universally assented to; many doubt it today, and it is best defended not as an unchangeable principle of universal justice, but as a law proved byexperience to be expedient. It has no place in the jurisprudence of civilised and free countries outside of the domain of the common law and is nowhere observed in the search for truth outside the...
State of U.P. Vs. Jag Raj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1961All630
Desai, C.J.1. This application by the State for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court, is laid before us in accordance with the orders of the Bench by which it was heard. The opposite party was tried before a Magistrate for the offence of Section 14(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Act read with para 76 of the Provident Fund Scheme. The Magistrate convicted him, but cm appeal the Sessions Judge acquitted him. The State preferred an appeal from the acquittal which was dismissed by our brothers, Vishnu Datta Bhargava and Takru. The question raised in the appeal before them was of the effect of the number of workmen employed in a factory falling below iifty after the scheme had come into force.It was held by them that after the number of workmen employed in a factory by the opposite party fell below fifty, he was not bound to implement the scheme and could not be convicted under Section 14(2) of the Act. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›