Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.109
ORDERKensington, J.1. The Additional District Magistrate, when sentencing Ganda Singh on the 19ih April 1910 (Case No. 24-7 of 1910), overlooked the application of Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code.It is only in case of separate convictions at one trial that the question arises whether sentences should he concurrent or consecutive. In all other cases, Section 397 is imperative.2. Ganda Singh had been previously convicted by the same Magistrate on 30th March 1910 and sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment, since reduced to two years on appeal. The Magistrate was not competent to direct that the fresh sentence of 19th April 1910 should run from the date of his order and that portion of his order is set aside.3. It seems to have been the Magistrate's intention that Ganda Singh should undergo a total period of 4 years' imprisonment. To give effect to this intention, as near as may be, it is hereby ordered on revision that the second sentence of 19th April 1910 be so far reduced that the peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H22
Teja Singh, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption and the only question that falls for determination is whether the sale which was the subject-matter of the suit could be pre-empted under law.2. The facts briefly stated are as follows: One Amar Nath and his brother Jai Chand were joint owners of a house situate in Sonepat. On uth July 1937, Amar Nath sold his half share to Mangal Sain for Rs. 300. About four years later the son of Amar Nath and the sons of his brother Jai Chand, who were all minors, brought a suit for declaration that Amar Nath had no power to mortgage his share and that the mortgage was void against them. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Only the sons of Jai Chand preferred an appeal to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge. During the pendency of the appeal a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 12th July 1943. The terms of the compromise inter alia were:(1) that the whole house be auctioned by the Court Auctioneer under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1041
Ram Lall, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to a F.B. for decision:1. Whether when proceedings are submitted by a Ses. J. to the H. C. before 15-8-1947 under Section 374, Cr. P.C. for confirmation of a sentence of death passed by him, the Lahore H, C. has Jurisdiction to deal with the case, irrespective of the fact that the offence was committed & the trial held in territories comprised in the East Punjab Province?2. Whether the appeal filed: (a) by the convict sentenced to death, & (b) by co-accused who were sentenced to a lower penalty but notice of enhancement of sentence was served on them before 15-8-1947 by the Lahore H. C; can be heard & decided only by the said Ct.?2. The reference arose in the following circumstances : One Bashir Ahmad was arrested at Jullundur on 8-3-1947 in connection with a murder said to have been committed on the same day at Jullundur. The learned Ses. J. tried him at Jullundur & convicted & sentenced him to death on 2-7-1947. On 11-7-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ271
Mahajan J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following questions of law:(1) When an amended petition under Section 491, Criminal P. C , is presented on behalf of a, person in detention, does the presentation of the amended or fresh petition make the original petition infructuous, in a case where of the amended petition cognizance has been taken by a Judge and notice on it issued Whether in these circumstances has an Hon'ble Judge before whom the original petition Is laid power to deal with it ?(2) When a petition under Section 491, Criminal P. C., is already pending in the High Court, whether a petition presented substantially on the same facts subsequently can be dealt with by the Court before the first petition is disposed of ?(3) Whether any petition under Section 491, Criminal P. C., or under any other section can be preheated direst to an Hon'ble Judge and entertained by him In other words, can ft petition Under Section 491, Criminal P. C, be made to a Judge of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H67
Mahajan, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following questions of law:(1) When an amended petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., is presented on behalf of a person in detention, does the presentation of the amended or fresh petition make the original petition infruotuoua, in a case where of the amended petition cognizance has been lateen by a Judge and notice on it issued 1 Whether in Aese circumstances has an Hon'ble Judge before whom ihe original petition is laid power to deal with it?(2) When a petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., is already pending in the High Court, whether a petition resented substantially on the same facts subsequently can be dealt with by the Court before the first petition is disposed of?(3) Whether any petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., or under any other section can be presented direst to an Hon'ble Judge and entertained by him. In other words, can a petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., be made to a Judge of this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H334
Harnam Singh, J.1. Jit Singh, Amrik Singh and Harnam Singh of village Akalgarh were tried for the murder of Hazura Singh of village Rasulpur in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Jit Singh and Amrik Singh are brothers and Harnam Singh is their uncle. Amrik Singh and Harnam Singh have been acquitted and Jit Singh has been convicted under Section 302, Penal-Code, and sentenced to transportation for life. Jit Singh appeals.2-3. Briefly, the prosecution case is that there-was enmity between Bakhshi Singh an uncle of Hazura Singh deceased, and the accused. Hazura Singh had come to visit bis uncle Bakhshi Singh in village Akalgarh and at about sunset on 18th June 1947 he was taking his meals with Bakhshi Singh when Jit Singh, Amrik Singh and Harnam Singh attacked him. Jit Singh appellant gave a barahha blow in the abdomen of Hazura Singh, while Amrik Singh attacked him with dhangi on his head and Harnam Singh gave him a dang' blow on the hips. Nichhatar Singh and Bakhshi Singh witnes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1955P& H81
ORDERFalshaw, J.1. Sarnagat Singh filed a complaint at, Delhi under Sections 498, 379 and 109, Penal Code against his wife Mohindar Kaur, Kewal Kishan and the letter's sister Kumari Indra Devi alleging that Kewal Kishan and Kumari Indra Devi had enticed away his wife, who had taken away with her some property belonging to him. After recording the preliminary evidence the learned Magistrate, who dealt with the complaint found that the charge of theft was not substantiated and ordered the issue of warrants bailable in a sum of Rs. 500/- against Kewal Kishan and Kumari Indra Devi for their appearance as accused under Section 498, Penal Code and at the same time ordered the issue of a warrant of arrest against Mohindar Kaur, presumably for her appearance as a witness, though this was not stated in the order, which also omitted to specify the nature of the warrant to be issued,On behalf of Kumari Indra Devi an application was filed in the court of the learned Magistrate for her exemption fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H342
Harnam Singh, J.1. The dispute out of which this appeal has arisen relates to the inheritance of Mahain Singh who owned a 1/6th share in 354 kanals and 12 marlas of land situate in village Ohogwan Rupowali and 1/6th share in 244 kanals 15 marlas situate in village Chowinda. He died in the beginning of the year 1943 and the mutation in respect of the land left by him was sanctioned on 20th January 1944 in favour of Taru defendant 1 as the adopted son of the aforesaid Mahain Singh. The plaintiffs who are collaterals of the deceased Mahain Singh in the second degree instituted a suit on 4th April 1944 for possession of 1/8th share of the lands in the two villages on the allegations that Taru defendant 1 was not the adopted son of Mahain Singh and that he was not entitled to succeed to the property left by the said Mahain Singh in preference to themselves. The land left by Mahain Singh was alleged to be ancestral qua the plaintiffs. The suit was resisted by Taru, defendant 1, on a number o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ568
Harnam Singh, J.1. Gurdial Singh, Jat, aged 35 years, has been, found guilty of the murder of Pritam Singh and convicted under Ss, 308/84, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. Gurdial Singh has come up to this Court in appeal through Mr. Tek Chand and S. S. Jhanda Singh has appeared for the Crown.2. The prosecution case was that on 24th April 1947 at about sunrise the said Pritam Singh along with his siri Gurdial Singh mazhbi went to his field Leaving Gurdial Singh mazhbi near his cArticle Pritam Singh went to case him-self. Suddenly, Gurdial Singh accused, and Harchand Singh and Ajaib Singh abaconders, emerged from the bushes armed with spears and gandasas. Gurdial Singh accused and Harchand Singh were armed with spears while Ajaib Singh had a gandasa. They attacked Pritam Singh with their respective weapons and inflicted upon him a number of injuries. Gurdial Singh mazhbi rushed to the rescue of Pritam Singh and received injuries in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ840
Harnam Singh, J.1. Jit Singh, Amrik Singh and Harnam Singh of village Akalgarh were tried for the murder of Hazura Singh of village Rasulpur in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ludhisna. Jit Singh and Amrik Singh are brothers and Harnam Singh is their uncle. Amrik Singh and Harnam Singh have been acquitted and Jit Singh has been convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life. Jit Singh appeals.2-3. Briefly, the prosecution case is that there was enmity between Bakhshi Singh an uncle of Hazura Singh deceased, and the accused. Hazurft Singh had come to visit his uncle Bakhshi Singh in village Akalgarh and at about sunset on I8tb June 1947 he was taking Mb meals with Bakhshi Singh when Jit Singh, Amrik Singh and Harnam Singh attacked him. Jit Singh appellant gave a. barohha blow in the abdomen of Hazura Singh while Amrik Singh attacked him with dhangi on his head and Harnam Singh gave him a dang blow on the bipa. Nichhatar Singh and Bakhshi Singh witness...
Tag this Judgment!