Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1958All492; 1958CriLJ834
V. Bhargava, J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment proposed to be delivered by my brother Mulls, J. I agree with him that Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in the case of a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act No. 46 of 1952, but I would like to give the reasons for my opinion in my own language. My brother, Mulla, J., has already discussedthe three relevant decisions of the Madras, the Patna and the Punjab High Courts and it does not appear to be necessary for me to comment on those cases again.2. It appears to me that, in designating the Court, which is empowered to try cases under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, as a Court of a Special Judge, the legislature clearly intended to indicate that a Special Judge will neither be a Magistrate nor a Court of Session as constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Had there been any intention that the Special Judge was to be a Magistrate or a court of session, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All508; 1965CriLJ455
S.D. Khare, J.1. This appeal has come before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge because he was of the opinion that there was someconflict in the earlier decisions of this Court, all of which were by single Judges.2. The facts of this appeal, briefly stated, are that Tej Singh (appellant) and seven others were sent up to stand their trial under Sections 366, 368, 378, 147 and 323/149, Penal Code, on a police report, which in its turn was based on a report made by Chandra-sen, husband of Sm. Bhagwati. The husband had mentioned in his report that on 25th August, 1961, while he and his wife were returning from village Manpur after plucking chillies from their fields, Tej Singh appellant accompanied by other accused persons (since acquitted) sprang out of a full-grown chad field, caught hold of Sm. Bhagwati and took her away with them. On the morning of 28th August, 1961, i.e., two days after the report had been made to the police by the husband of Smt. Bhagwati, the latter wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1959All483; 1959CriLJ924
A.N. Mulla, J. 1. Sri C. N. Peters has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.Code and sentenced to fifteen months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months by Sri K. L. Arora, Special Judge, Lucknow. The charge against the appellant is that he demanded and received illegal gratification from Kalapnath Lal Guard on 14-2-1955 at about 4 P. M. in the Guards' Running Room at Gorakhpur Railway station.2. The prosecution story is that the appellant was posted at Gorakhpur as the Claims Prevention Inspector in the North Eastern Railway. Kalapnath Lal was a Guard in the same railway with his headquarters at Gonda. On the 8th February 1955, Kalapnath had taken a goods train from Gonda to Gorakhpur and when the train reached Gorakhpur it was found that some bags were stolen away from one of the wagons in the train. A report was made to the Government Railway Police and enquires were started.The appellant who was present at Gorakhpur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All26
ORDER1. This is (in application in revision by one Salig Ram who, along with 30 other persons was tried by a Special Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 395, Penal Code. The offence that formed the subject of charge against the applicant was alleged to have boon committed on 14th August 1942. The trial was by a Special Magistrate in pursuance of the provisions of Section 10 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1942. The learned Magistrate acquitted one of the accused and convicted the remaining 30 accused. He sentenced Salig Ram to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 50 and in default of payment of fine he ordered Salig Ram to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Salig Ram appealed to the Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal holding that no appeal lay to him in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Ordinance. Salig Ram then filed the present application in revision in this Court. The decision of the Magistrate has been assailed by Mr. Pyare Lal Banerji ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All562
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., by Harpal Singh, security prisoner in the Central Prison, Bareilly, in the following circumstances:2. The applicant was arrested on 29th May 1949. The Provincial Government ordered on 6th Jane 1949 his detention for six months under Section 3 (1) (a), U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act (IV [4] of 1947). He was transferred to the Central Prison, Bareilly, where he remained in detention till 6th December 1949. He was transferred to Aligarh on 6th December. There, on 6th December he was served with the order of the District Magistrate, Aligarh. This order, D/-4th December 1949, directed him under Section 3 (1) (d) of the Act not to disseminate any news or propagate any opinions prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order etc., etc., and under section 3 (1) (f) to keep the peace and to abstain from participating directly or indirectly in any activities, subversive of law a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1971All107; 1971CriLJ359
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J.1. This is an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi. an Advocate practising in the district of Sultanpur.2. The brief facts leading to this application are these:3. One Allah Rahman was tried for theft of a bullock under Section 379. I. P. C. in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur. He was being defended by the Syed Alley Eba Rizvi, Advocate, in the said case. In defence a receipt Ext. Kha-1 was filed before the said Magistrate through a list of documents under the signature of Syed Alley Eba Rizvi with the endorsement 'through Syed Alley Eba Rizvi.' On the basis of this receipt it was sought to be proved by the accused that the bullock belonged to him having been purchased by him from Mohammad Hanif. This plea of the accused was disbelieved by the Magistrate who found also that the receipt had been forged for the purposes of the case. Allah Rahman was convicted and sentenced under Section 379, I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All351; 1956CriLJ1383
Desai, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Orai, directing the applicants under Section 247(1), U. P. Municipalities Act to stop using their houses for habitual prostitution. The revision application has been filed under Sections435 and 439, Criminal P. C.When it was put up for disposal before our brother James, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Municipal Board that it was not maintainable. The contention of the Board was that an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 247(1) of the Municipalities Act cannot be revised by the High Court under Section 439, Criminal P. C.2. The High Court is authorised by Section 435 (1) of the Code to 'call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court.' Section 439 lays down that in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which has been reported for orders, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All618; 1960CriLJ1290
Tandon, J.1. The petitioner who is Gaya Prasad Misra was a member of the Police Force in this State. He entered service sometime in 1935 as a Constable but was working as Station Officer Incharge Police Station Misrikh in 1952. While posted in Sitapur district where Misrikh is situate he appeared to have purchased a house for Rs. 8000/- in the name of his wife. Admittedly he did not inform the higher authorities, as was necessary under Rule 11 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, about the purchase of this house.He was accordingly asked by the Superintendent of Police on 18-12-1953 about this purchase and he was also suspended with effect from the same date. On 10-4-1953 he was served with a charge sheet also under Section 7 of the Police Act accusing him of several charges in which he was blamed of having accepted illegal gratification besides purchasing the above house.A case under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 was also registered agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1958All703; 1958CriLJ1257
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code against the filing of a complaint under a 195 (c), Criminal Procedure Code by the Registrar on behalf of this Court in compliance of the order of the Chief Justice dated the 6th of April, 1953 on a complaint filed on behalf of Parduman Das on the 28th of September, 1951 complaining that Ram Das appellant had committed forgery in connection with two entries in the Kachchi Rokar Bahi of Parduman Das for the year Sambat 2005.2. A criminal case under Sections 408 and 477-A, I. P. C. was instituted against Ram Das by Ram Shanker Lal, manager and mukhtar-i-am of Parduman Das, in February, 1949. That case had nothing to do with the aforesaid forged entries. Ram Das was convicted by the trial court of those offences but was acquitted by the Sessions Judge on appeal on the 17th of April, 1951. On the 18th of May, 1951 Ram Shanker Lal filed a criminal revision No. 747 of 1951 in this Court against the acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All416
Walli Ullah, J. 1. This appeal was heard by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, Sinha and Wanchoo JJ., on 10-11-1947. At the close of the hearing, judgment was dictated in open Court by the learaed Judges. In the result, the appeal was allowed, the decrees of the courts below were set aside and the claim of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed with costs. Before the transcript of the judgment was signed by the learned Judges, it appears that the case was 'mentioned' to the learned Judges with the result that the transcript was not signed by either of the two learned Judges. On the contrary, at appears that at the stage of signing the transcript either one or both the learned Judges felt the necessity of having some points further clarified by further arguments from counsel. Thus on 9-12-1947, as the 'order sheet' shows, some arguments were heard but they were not finished, and it was ord Ted that the case might be listed again after a week for further arguments. After this stag...
Tag this Judgment!