Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1959All315; 1959CriLJ543
O.H. Mootham, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is 'whether this Court has power to revoke, review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a Criminal Revision and rehear the same? If so, in what circumstances?'2. It is common ground that there is no section of the Code of Criminal Procedure which specifically confers such power on this Court, but it is contended that the Court has an inherent power to review a judgment or order previously made by it on a criminal revision application if it considers it expedient to do so in order to secure the ends of justice, and that that power has been preserved by Section 561-A. There is authority which supports this view but, with great respect, I do not think that the argument is well founded.3. Section 561-A was introduced into the Code by the! Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1923, and it provides that'nothing in this Code be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All263
Collister, J.1. This is a reference arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 1939. There are three appellants and they have appealed from their conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. Their names are Baldeo, Lakhan and Tirmal. Evidence was admitted at the trial to the effect that Tirmal, while in custody of the police, stated to the second officer that the knife with which he and the other two appellants had murdered the deceased was at his house and that he could give it to the police officer if he were taken to the house. It is in evidence that Tirmal was thereafter escorted to his house and he unearthed a knife from under a heap of rice straw. The knife had stains of blood on it which was subsequently found to be of human origin. The following question has been referred to this Full Bench:What portion, if any, of the statement to the effect that 'the knife with which he and Baldeo and Lakhan, had murdered Maharaj Singh was at his house under a heap of pyal' alleged to have been made b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)ARC409; 2005(1)AWC831
V.C. Misra, J.1. Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 are present. No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 3--Munni Lal to oppose the writ petition, though Sri S. M. Dayal, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on his behalf. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 26.8.1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the XIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 1 and dated 14.8.1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 2. Though the petitioner has sought for certain other reliefs in the writ petition, but during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the relief No. 1 and pressed the same only.3. The facts of the case in brief-ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1962All450
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This order governs Criminal Revisions Nos. 1502 to 1505 of 1960 by the Municipal Board of Bijnor against the judgments of Sri Sachidanand, Assistant Sessions Judge, Bijnor whereby Criminal Appeals preferred by Bhim Singh, Baldeo Singh Kishore and Kailash Chandra alias Munnoo were allowed. The Criminal Revisions were presented, before me as Application Judge on 6-9-1960 with office reports dated 31-8-1960. The office did not make a note that the revisions were being presented in Court directly without first of all approaching the Sessions Judge. This fact was also not brought to the notice of the Application Judge, but the facts as detailed in the hearing of the revisions would have indicated that no revision had been made before the Sessions Judge and the applicant was challenging the order of discharge directly before the High Court, It cannot, therefore, be said that the applicant was guilty of, or was in any way responsible for concealment of facts.The fact, howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1897)ILR19All390
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This case raises not only the question as to whether the appellant was or was not guilty of the offence of which he was convicted; but important questions as to the use which may or may not legally be made of diaries made by Police officers under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as to what those diaries may contain. I propose first to consider the latter questions.2. In the course of the arguments before us the following cases were cited: Reg. v. Uttamchand Kapurchand 11 Bom. H.C. Rep. 120; The Empress v. Kali Churn Chunari I.L.R. 8 Cal. 154; The Empress v. Jhubboo Mahton I.L.R. 8 Cal. 739; Queen-Empress v. Sitaram Vithal I.L.R. 11 Bom. 657; Bikao Khan v. The Queen-Empress I.L.R. 16 Cal. 610; Queen-Empress, v. Madho I.L.R. 15 All. 25; Sheru Sha v. The Queen-Empress I.L.R. 20 Cal. 642; Queen-Empress v. Nasir-ud-din I.L.R. 16 All. 207; Queen-Empress v. Taj Khan, I.L.R. 17 All. 57; Queen-Empress v. Nand Lal Weekly Notes, 1894, p. 155; Kallu v. Quee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All533
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. The question referred to us is whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Letters Patent (especially by Section 22) to transfer from the court of one Magistrate to the court of another Magistrate a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is a conflict of authority on the point. In In re Pandurang Govimd Pujari (1900) I.L.R., 25 Bom., 179 it was held that the High Court had no power under Section 526 of the Code to transfer a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code from one court to another. The reason given is that such a proceeding is not a 'criminal case' within the meaning of Section 526, that a criminal case means a case arising out of and dealing with some crime already committed and does not include proceedings taken for the prevention of a crime. The Madras High Court in Arumuga Tegundan (1902) I.L.R., 26 Mad., 188 dissented from the Bombay case. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1921All365; 60Ind.Cas.428
Piggott, J.1. I have before me two applications which have been preferred as miscellaneous applications iu First Appeal No. 198 of 1920. The unusual nature of the applications is apparent as much from the headings as from the actual contents of these papers. The names of the parties to the first appeal are of course given, but the miscellaneous application, as it describes itself, is made in terms as against the King-Emparor, opposite party, and notice has, under the orders of this Court, gone to the Government Advocate and to no one else, An appearance has been entered on behalf of the plaintiff respondent to the first appeal, but I do not think I should be justified in taking any action upcn this fact, seeing that notice was not ordered to go to him. The two applications are connected in this way. Raj Kunwar Singh is the defendant appellant in First Appeal No. 198 of 1920; which has been admitted and is pending yi this Court; the other applicant, Sundar Lal, is described in the affid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.84
1. The question referred to is whether the High Court has jurisdiction, under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Letters Patent, especially Section 22, to transfer from the Court of one Magistrate to the Court of another Magistrate a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. There is a conflict of authority on the point. In In re Pandurang Govind Pujari 25 B. 179, it was held that the High Court had no power, under Section 526 of the Code, to transfer a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code from one Court to another. The reason given is that such a proceeding is not a 'criminal cafe' within the meaning of Section 526; that a criminal case means a case arising out of and dealing with some crime already committed and does not include proceedings taken for the prevention of a crime. The Madras High' Court, in In re Arumuga Tegundan 26 M. 188, dissented from the Bombay case. The learned Judges said: 'We have no doubt of our power to transf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1976CriLJ274
C.D. Parekh, J.1. State of U. P, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated April 11, 1970, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, II, Etawah, in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 164 of 1968. The respondents Sant prakash, Prem Saran Munna Lai, Shiv Ram, Shri Ram and Duryodhan were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for the offences under Sections 395 and 353 IPC. The trial Judge held that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the respondents and acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. The present appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, It was contended for the respondents before the Division Bench that the officers acting under the authority of law (Defence of India Rules and Gold Control Order) did not comply with the provisions of Sections 103 and 165 Criminal P.C. 1898; the search and seizure, therefore, conducted by these officers were vitiated and were illegal and the respondents had a right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1908)ILR30All66
George Knox, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut in an appeal pending before him entered in his judgment the following observation: 'All accused persons are of right entitled to be defended by a pleader and the definition of 'pleader' in the Criminal Procedure Code does not include mukhtars; special permission of the Court has to be obtained for the representation of an accused person by other than a pleader; but Magistrates seem to take it as a matter of course that mukhtars should appear. While this is so, the standard of morals in the Courts can never improve. I dismiss this appeal and order that a copy of this judgment be Bent to the District Magistrate for information.' Upon receipt of this the District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar issued the following order: 'Mukhtars can appear under Section 4 (r) (1) only with the Court's permission. Draw all Courts' attention to this section.2. It is contended before as that both these orders, namely, the order of the Additional Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!