Allahabad Court March 1966 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.
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Babu Mian
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC13(All)
1. These are four appeals by the State. Government Appeals Nos. 44 and 45 have been filed against Babu Mian, while Government Appeals Nos. 46 and 47 have been filed against Om Prakash. All these appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, City Aligarh, dated the 5th October, 1963, acquitting the respondents under Section 14(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act-hereinafter called the Act. As all these appeals raise a common question of law, it will be convenient to dispose of them by a single judgment.2. The facts giving rise to these Government appeals are as follows:- In Government Appeal No. 44 of 1964, the Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh, on the 1st June, 1955, assessed the respondent to a sales tax of Rs. 67,822.00 for the assessment year 1956-57, and after deducting Rs. 384.75 P. paid by him, issued a demand notice to him for Rs. 67,437.25 P. but the respondent failed to make the payment within the time allowed. In Government Appeal No. 45 of 1964 the S...
State of U.P. Vs. Babu Mian
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC326(All)
J.N. Takru, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, City Aligarh, dated the 11th October, 1963, acquitting the respondent under Section 14(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act.2. The aforesaid appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the Sales Tax Officer, Incharge Aligarh, after obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, on the allegations that the respondent was the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Babu Mian Ibrahim, which carried on the business of vegetable ghee in Aligarh in the year 1958-59. On the 28th March, 1958, the respondent applied for registration under Section 8-A of the Act, but on his failure to furnish the security demanded under Section 8-A(b), his registration application was rejected on the 13th May, 1958. He however carried on his business without a registration certificate during 1958-59, and as such contravened the provisions of Section 8-A(1)(a) of the ...
State Vs. Rajeshwari Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1361
ORDERJ.N. Takru, J.1. On the 11th June 1965, Sri S.N. Sharma, the then Judicial Officer (City) Kanpur, made a report to the Registrar of this Court, through the proper channel, that the three Annexures marked A, B and C sent along with that report be brought to the notice of this Court, and that suitable action might be taken against Rajeshwar Prasad Saxena, the opposite party under Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, In this report Sri S.N. Sharma stated that the matters contained in the enclosed Annexures appeared in 'Kali Raten'-a Hindi Weekly-dated the 8th May 1965, and as they attributed improper motive to the Presiding Officer of the Court, and were calculated to scandalize the Court and to lower its prestige and dignity, and to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the opposite party, who was responsible for their publication, be punished for committing contempt of Court. The passage to which objection was taken read thus:On the 12th of August, due to special e...
Mulla Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All132; 1968CriLJ435
ORDERG.D. Sahgal, J. 1. Mulla Singh, Bhabhuti Singh, son of Lalita Singh, Ram Bharosey Singh, Mangal Rai. Badri Bhurji. Debi, Ganga Prasad, Jagmohan, Bhabhuti Singh son of Himanchal Ram Charan. Prahlad Singh. Sriram. Surian Singh, Moti and Nanha have all been convicted by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge of Unnao of an offence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code i.e. rioting and have each been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year Out of them Moti has been convicted of an offence under Section 234 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. for resisting or obstructing his lawful apprehension and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The other appellants except Moti have been convicted of an offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of that Code i.e. for resisting or obstructing lawful apprehension and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each. They have all been convicted under two counts under Section 332 read with Section 149...
Shital Chandra Datta Vs. Babu Ram Jodaun and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All150; 1967CriLJ307
ORDERD.P. Uniyal, J.1. This revision is from the judgment of the Civil and Sessions Judge Agra, dated June 9, 1964, upholding the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) dated 22-2-1964 dismissing an objection of the applicant(accused) against the validity of a complaint in respect of offences under Sections 153, 295A and 500 I. P. C.2. In the city of Agra there are two sects of the Radha Soami faith; one of whom is represented by the Dayal Bagh group and the other by the Swami Bagh group of the same faith. There was a dispute between the said two groups over possession of a plot of land in village Jaganpura, distrct Agra. The Soami Bagh group had obtained possession over this plot on 17-7-1962 by an order of the consolidation authority. On 12-10-1963 Babu Ram Jadaun Secretary of the Dayal Bagh Satsangh Sabha, sent a letter to Shital Chand Datta, Secretary, Soami Bagh saying that the crop in the above-mentioned plot had been sown by the Dayal Bagh group and so they had a...
Krishna Nand Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1966
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1112
R. Chandra, J.1. In Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1962 Mohammad Sami v. State and Capital Sentence Reference No. 25 of 1962 State v. Mohammad Sami, under the orders of Hon'ble Nigam and Misra, JJ. a complaint under Sections 471, 466, 193 and 218 of the I.P.C. was filed against Dr. K.N. Gupta. When the complaint came up for hearing before the Magistrate, an objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner, that in view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Shabir Hussain v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1963SC816 a complaint for the offences of giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence could be made only in accordance with the provisions of Section 479-A of the Cri.P.C. and since the complaint in the instant case had been filed under Section 476, Cri.P.C. the entire proceedings became null and void, and the Magistrate had no power to proceed with the case. The Magistrate dismissed the objection. Being aggrieved with that order, Dr. K.N. Gupta went up in rev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›