Allahabad Court September 1975 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.
Krishna NaraIn Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ503
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision has been filed by Kishan Narain against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- awarded to him for the offence. Along with Kishan Narain. one Ram Go-pal was also prosecuted, but he was acquitted by the trial Court.2. The case for the prosecution, in brief, was that a complaint had been received from the Civil Surgeon in the Municipal Board (Health Section) to the effect that the milk supplied to the Women's Hospital, the local District Hospital, T. B. Hospital and District Jail by and on behalf of the contractors was of substandard quality and adulterated. On this complaint being received the authorities directed Sri R. N. Dube. the Food Inspector to do the needful and check the milk. On 22-7-1969 at about 11 A. M.. the Food Inspector went to the Women's1 Hospital and saw Ram Gopal coming with milk and delivering it into the hospital mess to the _Mess-In...
Mahendra Singh Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All59
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. The petitioner is the President of the Nanawta Co-operative Society, Dist. Saharanpur from the year 1969, Since then he and the Committee of Management of the said Society are functioning in office and no fresh elections have been held after the expiry of this period to the Committee of Management of the Society. A notice under Section 29 (4) of the U. P. Co-operative Socities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was given by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 31st December. 1974, to hold elections within three months from the date of communication of the order. It appears, that the Society still failed to hold the elections with the result that on 6th May, 1975, the Assistant Registrar nominated a Committee of Management under Section 29 (5) of the Act. A representation was sent against the order D/- 6th May. 1975 Annexure '1' on 13th May. 1975. A report was called for by the Deputy Registrar which was submitted by the Additional District Co-...
Jai Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ739
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. The applicant has filed this revision against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded thereunder. The trial court awarded the sentence of six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In appeal the sentence of imprisonment was reduced by the learned Sessions Judge to the period till the rising of the court. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained.2. The prosecution case in brief was that on March 6, 1971 at about 6-30 P.M., the applicant was found selling milk purporting to foe cow milk. The Food Inspector after serving a notice on the applicant purchased from him 660 ml. of milk and paid 75 P. as its price. The milk was divided into three parts and was sealed after mixing formalin into three phials. One of the phials was given to the applicant. One was sent for examination to the public analyst and the third was maintained by the Food Inspector.3. The report of the public analyst showed that the sa...
Sohan Vs. Abdul Hameed Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All159
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This appeal arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiff-opposite party filed an application under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that Sohan the present appellant be imprisoned and his property be attached for disobeying the decree for permanent injunction passed against him in Suit No. 272 of 1955 on 6th July, 1965. That application was allowed by a learned Munsif Bahraich on 25th October 1971. Against that order a revision (No. 262 of 1971) was filed on 23-11-1971. That revision was disposed of by an order dated 5th September 1974. The counsel for the revisionist stated before this Court on 5th September 1974 that he may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition and that he would file later an appeal in the Court of the District Judge. Permission to withdraw the revision petition was given subject to payment of the cost of the opposite party. It was made clear that the order would not affect the rights of the decree-holder to a...
Suresh Prakash Vs. Krishna Swarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ462
ORDERH.N. Kapoor, J.1. This petition has been filed toy Suresh Prakash under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in case No, 2 under Section 133, Cr.P.C. pending in the court of City Magistrate, Etawah,2. Suresh Prakash claims to be tenant of the shop which is sought to be demolished. Proceedings under Sec 133, Cr.P.C. were started on the basis of the application of Krishna Swarup and his brothers, opposite parties, who are the owners of the building No, 125 in Mo'halla Karsol, Etawah, of which the shop is a portion. The application was supported by a report of the Engineer to the effect that the building had (become very old and was in a dilapidated condition and was likely to fall down. That report of the Engineer has been annexed to the counter-affidavit but there is reference to it in the subsequent order of the Magistrate .passed on 2-6-1975. The Magistrate passed the preliminary order under Section 133, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner on 8-4-...
Shabbir Ahmad Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ741
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision has been filed by the applicant against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs, 1,000.2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the applicant on October 28, 1970 at about 9 P.M. had exposed for sale milk which was claimed to be buf- falo milk. The Pood Inspector purchased 660 ml of milk and paid 0.90P. as its price. The required notice ni given and tiie jeceipt of payment was also obtained The milk purchased was divided into three parti and sealed in three bottles after adding iommalin. One of the samples was tanded-over to the vendor. The Food Inspector sent one of the sealed bottles to the PuMic Analyst for chemical test. The ana-Jyaii showed that the milk was deficient to fat contents by 43%. The Public Analyst accordingly reported that the sample adulterated.3. The accused pleaded not guilty. He also pleaded that he was not selling n...
Rajanlal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ516
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision has been filed against the conviction of the applicant under S, 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence awarded to him is of Rs. 1,000 fine. The case of the prosecution was that on 22-2-1971, the Food Inspector found the applicant selling milk from a container which he was carrying on his cycle. It was said to be cow milk. The Food Inspector after serving the notice required by Rule 12 purchased from him 660 mis. of milk on payment of 0.60 P. as price. The milk was divided into three phials after adding formalin. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for chemical examination. On the report of the Public Analyst that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids, the applicant was prosecuted. The accused admitted that the milk was sold to the Food Inspector after notice for sample and was divided into three phials. He claimed, however, that the milk was not adulterated, it was not meant for sale, and was being carrie...
Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ288
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. Learned for the applicants and the learned Government Advocate have been heard ; they are agreed that the revision may be finally heard and disposed of today.2. Revision has been filed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda passed under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19/3. The learned Magistrate has directed the applicants to be released on bail but has attached the unwarranted condition which runs as under:But this order shall be deemed to be vacated and cancelled as soon as a charge-sheet against him is received in the court.3. Section 167. Criminal P, C. does not contemplate such a conditional order of bail. Proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Criminal P.C. reads as under:The Magistrate may authorise detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detentio...
The Electricity Board, U.P. State Vs. Sheo Nath Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All118
T.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855).2. On 26-2-1966 one Sheo Ham Singh came in contact with a bare live overhead conductor of 11 K.W. which was lying on the ground having got snapped earlier in the night and got electrocuted. He was survived by his widow Smt. Bari Bitia and a minor son, Sheo Nath Singh. They filed a suit for recovery of the said compensation on the ground that the defendant Electricity Board, was negligent in maintaining the electric installation and in allowing the said overhead conductor to remain lying live for a long period. This suit was filed on 30-11-1968, that is, beyond the period of limitation. Sheo Nath Singh, minor, however, claimed the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act.3. The suit was resisted by the Electricity Board on a variety of grounds. It was pleaded by the defendant Board that it was not guilty of any negligence, that the amount o...
M/S. Sunder Lal Kunj Behari Lal Puranganj, Pilibhit Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)25
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Bareilly Range, Bareilly has under section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax referred the following question for our opinion :-'Whether there was any material in support of the taxable turnover fixed by the Judge (Revision) for the assessment year 1966-67 ?'2. There are two other reference viz. S.T.R. No. 422 of 1973 and S.T.R. No. 423 of 1973 relating to the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 while the present reference relates to the year 1966-67. The Judge (Revisions) disposed of the revisions for all these three assessment years by a common order and as such we propose to give a resume of all the three years in the present order for the sake of convenience.3. The assessee is a dealer in gur, rab, oil seeds and food grains etc. For the year 1966-67, the assessee showed purchase of goods from unregistered dealers at Rs. 330-70 and sale of Gur to unregistered dealers as selling agents at Rs. 1,768.73. Sales of hemp were shown at Rs. 6,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »