Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-27-1957
Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR159
Gokhale, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, proceeded] : Before I consider the evidence against the accused and the arguments addressed to us at great length on behalf of the accused on the evidence, I think it would be convenient to dispose of first some of the law points which have been argued on behalf of the accused. I may mention that ordinarily we would have expected counsel to address us on law points at. the very outset. But Mr. Purshottam informed us that he would address us on the law points after he dealt with the merits of the case against the accused on the basis of the evidence on the record. The first, law point raised by Mr. Purshottam is in connection with the charge. I may mention that in the first instance Mr. Purshottam and Mr. Harnam Singh, who appeared on behalf of accused No. 2, took exception only to the second and the third heads of the charge. It was Mr. Bhasme, who was appointed on behalf of accused Nos. 5 and 6, who challenged the legali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-27-1957
Reported in : 1958CriLJ1144
ORDERGokhale, J.1. (After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded;)Before I consider the evidence against the accused and the arguments addressed to us at great length on behalf of the accused on the evidence, I think it would be convenient to dispose of first some of the law points which have been argued on behalf of the accused. I may mention that ordinarily we would have expected Counsel to address us on law points at the very outset. But Mr. Purshottam informed us that he would address us on the law points after he dealt with the merits of the case against the accused on the basis of the evidence on the record. The first law point raised by Mr. Purshottam is in connection with the charge. I may mention that in the first instance Mr. Purshottam and Mr. Harnamsingh, who appeared on behalf of accused No. 2, took exception only to the second and the third heads of the charge. It was Mr. Bhasme, who was appointed on behalf of accused Nos. 5 and 6, who challenged the legality of the ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-30-1957
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
Decided on : Jan-10-1957
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 : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-25-1957
Reported in : AIR1958P& H72; 1958CriLJ413
Bhandari, C.J.1. These several petitions arise out of the case which is known popularly as the Budget Leakage-Case.2. On the 9th March, 1956 a report was received at the Police Station that certain Government Officers had made an unauthorised disclosure of Union Government's budget proposals for the year 1956-57 to some unauthorised persons. The Police registered a case under Sections 165A, 120B of the Penal Code, Section 5 of the Prevention off Corruption Act and Section 5 of the Official Secrects Act. and apprehended a number of persons including F, X. Jacobs, General Foreman of theRashtrapati Bhawan Printing Press, D P. Chadha, a reskieiit of Delhi, A. L. Mehra, Sales Manager of Mercury Paints and Varnishes, Bombay, N. L. More, a millowner of Bombay and H. G. L, Kothari, a resident o[ Bombay. On the 23rd March, 1956, Mr. D. D. Sharma, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi, tendered a pardon to Mehra under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on condition of his making a ful...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-08-1957
Reported in : AIR1957All505
Desai, J.1. This is an application, purporting to be under Order 45, Rule 13, C. P. C., for the issue of an order staying operation of the order passed by this Court on October 8, 1956, in Writ Petition No. 252 of 1956 and maintaining the status quo as regards possession over the land covered by the orders of the consolidation authorities. The facts leading to this application are as follows:2. Under Section 26 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (No. 5 of 1954) possession of some land belonging to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11 was transferred to other tenants of the village, who are opposite parties 12 to 16. After exhausting the remedy as provided in the Act against the transfer they filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, Mukhtar Singh v. State of U. P. : AIR1957All297 . A Bench of this Court quashed the orders of the consolidation authorities regarding transfer of possession of the Opposite parties' land on 8th October, 1956 on the ground that Section 14 (ee) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-18-1957
Reported in : AIR1958All1; 1958CriLJ1
Roy, J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State against an order of acquittal of the respondents who are five in number. Fateh Bahadur respondent No. 1 is a boy aged twelve years. He is an orphan and he lives with his uncle Rashik Behari Lal respondent No. 4, Sooraj Prakash respondent No. 3 belongs to the same caste as these two respondents & he is an amateur Homoepathic practitioner in village Manauna where the respondents reside. Respondent No. 2 is Umrai Gir and respondent No. 5 is Smt. Ram Murti the wife of Umrai Gir. 2. Fateh Bahadur was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 328, I. P. C., in that on the 16th of April, 1953, at about 11 a.m. he committed the murder of Sudarshan Puri by administering a poisonous pera to him knowing that it contained arsenic poison as a result of which Sudarshan Puri died on the same date by about 7 in the evening. The other four respondents were charged for the abetment of the offences under Sections 302 and 328, I. P. C. These...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-09-1957
Reported in : AIR1957P& H297; 1957CriLJ1448
ORDERMehar Singh, J.1. This application under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arises out of facts and circumstances as below:2. A firm of Ludhiana by the name of Roshan Lal-Des Raj is a dealer in yarn bales. It is owned by the two persons making up its name. On September 8, 1955, it sold 40 bales of yam to Genda Ram. This Genda Bam gave the bales to Jaimal Singh, proprietor of Doaba Dyeing House at Ludhiana, for dyeing. Jaimal Singh returned other bales except thirty-four and three-quarters bales. It appears that he sold those thirty-four and three-quarters bales to firm Roshan Lal-Des Raj on September 13, 1955. When Genda Ram could not obtain back the bales from Jaimal Singh and learnt of the disposal of the same by Jaimal. Singh to the firm Roshan Lal-Des Raj, he reported the matter to the police against all the three. The police recovered thirty-four bales of yarn from the shop of the firm Roshan Lal-Des Raj. All the three, namely Jaimal Singh, Roshan Lal, and Des Raj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-11-1957
Reported in : AIR1957All552; 1957CriLJ917
ORDER1. This is an application for permission to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. The order of acquittal is dated 22-8-1956. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cr. P. C., the period of limitation for filing an application for special leave is sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal. So the present application for leave is barred by time.2. Mr. Sadiq Ali appearing for the complainant-applicant has urged that the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 417, Cr. P. C., are unconstitutional inasmuch as they violate the principle of Article 14 which enunciates the principle of equality before law.''The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.''It has been pointed out that, Section 417, Cr. P. C., makes different provisions for appeals against acquittals according as whether the appellant is the State Government or a private complainant. Sub-section (1) of Section 417 pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-29-1957
Reported in : AIR1958All159; 1958CriLJ308
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Ram Prasad and others were convicted of offences under Sections 147, 447 and 352, I. P. C. Subsequent to their conviction, the Magistrate convicting them passed an order under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure, ordering them to restore possession to the complainant Ram Gopal. Possession was actually delivered to the complainant. On appeal, Ram Prasad and others were acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge on 19th of September, 1955. The Court observed :'In view of what I have observed above it cannot be said that the prosecution has satisfactorily established the possession of Ram Gopal on the plots in suit immediately before the occurrence. No case Under Sections 147, 447 and 352, I. P. C. has thus been established. The real dispute between the parties seems to be abouttheir rights in the land but they should be solved through proper Court by proper proceedings.'2. On 20th of September, 1955, Ram Prasad and others, the acquitted persons, applied to the Ass...
Tag this Judgment!