Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All256
John Stanley, C.J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, submitting the record to the High Court with a recommendation that the commitment of the accused Kali Charan Arakh, Behari Arakh, and Girdhari Arakh, who are British subjects, be quashed under Section 215 of Act No. V of 1898, on the ground that the name was illegal. The offence with which the accused are charged is alleged to have been committed in Nepal. The Magistrate inquired into the charge without having the certificate of the Political Agent of Nepal as required by Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section provides that no charge as to, among others, an offence committed beyond the limits of British India, or by a British subject in the territories of any Native Prince or Chief in India, shall be enquired into in British India unless the Political Agent, if there be one, for the territory in which the offence is said to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All254
John Stanley, C.J.1. There are no grounds for this application, Gulzari Lal was tried and convicted of the embezzlement of suing of money amounting in the aggregate to Rs. 37-3-6, moneys paid to him as patwari of a certain village by the tenants Under the Court of Wards, and which he represented that he had authority to collect. In the charge the aggregate amount of the items is slated, and, in addition to that, the particulars giving the dates and the amounts of three payments are also stated. It is to be observed that the alleged criminal breach of trust was committed within the period of one year, and therefore the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply. This sub-section is in the following terms: 'When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust, or dishonest misappropriation of money, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All306
Knox, J.1. The accused has been convicted of an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Of the serious nature of the offence there can be no doubt.2. The learned Magistrate who convicted the accused said not one word too strong in his judgment about the nature of the offence. He adds, however, that in consideration of the youth of the accused (for he is only twenty years of age), and that he is apparently of a respectable family, and from his appearance seems rather weak than deliberately criminal, lie proceeds to pass a sentence which would have been a light sentence for an offence under the section under which the accused was convicted.3. Taking all the learned Magistrate had said into consideration, it appeared to me that this was a case to which the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were intended to apply. It was necessary, however, to be satisfied that matters, which had not been pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All315
John Stanley, C.J.1. A rule in this case was issued, calling upon the Magistrate to show cause why his order of the 21st of January, 1902, passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should not be set aside, on the ground that the same was passed without hearing the evidence of any of the witnesses who were produced on behalf of the second party, Lala Nathu Mal, and such other order passed as the Court might think fit. The rule was issued by me under a misapprehension as to the facts. I understood from a statement of the learned vakil who made the application that none of the witnesses who were called on behalf of the second party had been examined. It, however, now transpires that no less than ten witnesses were examined on his behalf. It appears that in addition to these ten witnesses summonses had been issued for the attendance of 21 other witnesses, and that none of these last-mentioned witnesses were examined by the Magistrate, inasmuch as he believed that the evid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All346
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this reference. It is contended that the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 439 apply. We are not prepared to accede to this contention, or to say that we shall in no case entertain a reference simply because of what is laid down in that paragraph. At the same time the fact remains that it was open to the Local Government to present an appeal from this acquittal. Where the Local Government do not adopt this procedure, or where the Magistrate does not move the Local Government to adopt this procedure in cases where it could be adopted, and sends to us direct, we think it expedient, as a general rule, not to exercise our powers of revision. We refuse to entertain the reference. Let the record be returned....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All348
John Stanley, C.J., Blair and Burkitt, JJ.1. In this matter a petition has been presented to the High Court by Pandit Padma Dat Joshi, praying that certain orders of the Commissioner of Kumaun refusing to enrol him as a pleader under Section 8 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879) qualified to practise in the Courts of the Sessions Judge of Kumaun and of the Subordinate Magistrates, in all the Revenue Offices, and also in the Commissioner's Court in respect of the cases referred to in Rule (11) of the Kumaun Rules, may be set aside, and that the Commissioner of Kumaun may be directed to enrol him as such pleader, and to permit him to practise in the said Courts and Offices.2. It appears that the pleader, being duly qualified in that behalf, applied to this High Court to be admitted and enrolled as a pleader of this Court, and was duly enrolled as such on the 19th of August 1898. Subsequently he made several applications to the Commissioner of Kumaun for license to practise as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All402
Burkitt, J.1. The facts in the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:The plaintiff asserts that the defendants-appellants sold to her certain immovable property and executed a formal conveyance of the same to her; that when the conveyance was presented for registration, the defendants-appellants denied execution, whereupon the Sub-Registrar refused, to register it. This was on November 15th, 1900. The next incident in the case is that the plaintiff respondent on December 17th, 1900, made an application to the Registrar under the provisions of Section 73 of the Registration Act, No. III of 1877. The application was clearly made two days beyond the time limited by that section, and the Registrar therefore summarily rejected it. The present suit was then instituted underline permission given by Section 77 of the Act. The plaintiff respondent prays for a declaration of her right to have the conveyance mentioned above registered.2. The Muusif held that the suit was not mai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All363
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an. appeal by the defendant from an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, reversing the decision of the Munsif upon certain questions of fact, and remanding the case for the trial of the remaining issue in the case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The suit was brought to recover damages for alleged malicious prosecution. It appears that the defendant Bhim Sen lodged a complaint against the plaintiff, Sita Ram, of an offence under Section 215 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Magistrate of Bulandshahr, the charge being that the plaintiff stole cattle, and then restored the cattle to the owners on receipt of rewards. The complaint was heard and dismissed on the 21st of December, 1900. Thereupon, on the 21st of January, 1901, the present suit was instituted. In his plaint the plaintiff alleges that there was enmity between him and the defendant arising out of a dispute about a plot of land which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All443
Blair, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of, a Magistrate made in proceedings under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances are these. Har Sahai Patak, the owner of the property in dispute, died, leaving him surviving a widow and two sons of daughters. It is not disputed that under the ordinary law of inheritance the widow would take a life estate, and the daughters 'sons' interest would open up upon her decease. It is alleged that the deceased, Har Sahai Patak, made a will, the validity and the provisions of which became the subject of dispute between the widow of Har Sahai and Behari Lal and others. It was concluded by a compromise, which denned the relations of the parties to be established from that moment. It provided that the widow should retain her life estate, but that Behari Lal should manage the property on her behalf, not, however, taking any steps with regard to it without her consent. The Magistrate made the order, having received info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All368
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises in a suit; brought by the respondent to recover from the defendant Rs. 5,000 as 'compensation on account of mental distress and defamation.' It appears that on the 18th of April 1898, Ori, a servant of the defendant, accompanied by the defendant, went to the Police station at Mirzapur and laid an information to the effect that the plaintiff, Muhammad Hadi, and several other persons entered the female apartments of the defendant, broke open locks, plundered his goods, and caused hurt to his wife. There upon an inquiry was made by the Police, with the result that the information was found to be false, and a report was sent up to that effect on the 28th of April, 1898. The defendant was prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The present suit was instituted on the 28th of April, 1899. In answer to it the defendant raised, among other pleas, the plea of limitation, which has been...
Tag this Judgment!