Privy Council Court July 1945 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.
Chainchal Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-03-1945
Lord Goddard: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Lahore dismissing an appeal by the appellant from a conviction for murder by the Additional Sessions Judge of Amritsar. The question of law which arises and was the ground on which special leave was given is whether the previous statement of a witness for the prosecution made before the Committing Magistrate was properly admitted at the trial under S. 33, Evidence Act, 1872. While contending that the statement was properly admitted the Crown submits that even if it ought to have been rejected there was ample evidence justifying the conviction and that accordingly no grave or substantial injustice has been done. Their Lordships have already stated that they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed and now proceed to give their reasons. The appellant was charged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge along with thirteen others with the murder of one Sohan Singh. The Sessi...
Malak Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-03-1945
Lord Porter: This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 18th October 1944, dismissing the appellant's appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Jhelum dated 1st July 1944, and confirming the sentence of death passed upon him. Special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted by an Order in Council dated 21st March 1945. The main legal point for decision in this appeal is whether in an appeal from a conviction of murder, the High Court is entitled to accept, as corroboration of the guilt of the accused, evidence (given in the Sessions Court where the charge was one of murder and robbery) which was material to both charges but failed to convince the Sessions Court of the guilt of the accused of the crime of robbery with the result that he was acquitted of that charge. Akbar Khan was a lambardar of the village of Bahl, and he and his brother-in-law Nur Khan were waylaid on 6th January 1944, on their way back from the village of ...
Ali Mahomed Adamalli Vs. Emperor
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jul-03-1945
Lord Porter: This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 2nd December 1941, by which the appellant was fined Rs. 1000 for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act (12 of 1926) in failing to obey an order made by the Acting Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on 4th September 1939. The order had directed the appellant to furnish a statement of particulars of wakf property under S. 3, Mussulman Wakf Act, 1923 (Act 42 of 1923) as amended by the Mussalman Wakf (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1935 (Bombay Act 18 of 1935). Under that section it is provided that every mutawalli shall furnish to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property of which he is mutawalli is situated a statement containing certain particulars. By S. 5 every mutawalli is ordered to prepare and furnish to the Court to which such statement was furnished a full and true statement of accounts containing certain prescribed particulars, within three mon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›