Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All15; 1965CriLJ1
Uniyal, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 31-8-1962 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut, acquitting Ram Pal respondent under Section 5 or the Explosive Substances Act. The respondent was tried for offences under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as also under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosives Act. He was convicted of the offence under Section 6 of the Explosives Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment but was acquitted of the charges under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as well as Section 5 of the Explosives Act. While the State has acquiesced in his acquittal under Section 5 of the Explosives Act it has challenged his acquittal under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.2. The facts relating to the recovery or country made bomb material from the possession of the respondent on the night of the 8th January, 1960 have not been disputed. The report of Sri B. N. Dey, Inspector of Explosives, proved that the explosive mate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1986CriLJ1576
L.P. Singh, J.1. Gajendra Singh petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the order dt. 27-9-1984, passed by District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 ( No. 65 of 1980) hereinafter referred to as the Act detaining the detenu with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. The detenu had been arrested on 26-9-83, when he was undergoing treatment in a hospital at Gorakhpur. The said detention order was served on him on 27-9-84 in District Jail, Gorakhpur. The grounds of the detention were also served on him along with the detention order. The said grounds are three in number, translated in English they are as follows : --i. That on 22-7-83 in the night at about 12.00, the detenu along with Tikori Singh and Surendra Singh residents of Kalesar, P. S. Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur, and 6 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All266
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J. 1. The petitioner is a registered Medical Graduate and resides in a house situate in an Ahata known as Chandrika Prasad Bagicha, situate in Mohalla Chunniganj, Kanpur. The Bagicha lies in one of the thickly populated commercial and residential localities of Kanpur. A trust was created in 1917 in respect of this Bagicha and one Mukandi Lal Garg was acting as its Managing Trustee till 22nd March, 1975, nO new trustee has since been appointed.2. The petitioner's case is that Srimati Rabia Begum respondent No. 4, who is a war widow, started raising construction over a portion of the afore-said Bagicha in May, 1975, in close proximity to the petitioner's residential house. On an enquiry the petitioner came to know that she had obtained a lease in respect of 1,000 Sq. yards of land in this Bagicha from Mukandi Lal Garg on 1-2-1975 for the construction of a godown for the storage of 500 gas cylinders. The petitioner's father Dr. M. G. Mangalani also resided with him. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All376; 1960CriLJ779
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908) for knowingly having in his possession or control an explosive substance in the circumstances showing that he was not having it in his possession, for a lawful object. It has been found as a matter of fact, on the basis of evidence, that he was carrying the explosive bomb in a pocket of his knickers and that it exploded causing injuries to him. He offered no explanation for his possession of the bomb; on the contrary he denied his possession of it altogether.2. Section 7 of the Act lays down that 'no court shall proceed with the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government'. The cognizance of the offence under the Act was taken in this case by a court with the consent of the Governor and not the Central Government. The Governor claims to have the power to give consent under Notification No. 25/1/54-Police (I) dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 155Ind.Cas.369
1. In this case which has been referred to as the Agra Conspiracy Case all six appellants were charged with conspiracy, the charge being that between February 1931 and August 1932 at Agra, they jointly and severally agreed and conspired together with one another and with Dau Dayal, who is absconding, and also with Uma Shankar, Ram Nath and Vishwa Nath, approvers, and with other persons known or unknown and not before the Court, to do or cause to be done jointly and severally illegal acts, the illegal acts being to collect and possess fireaims and ammunition and explosive substances, to commit attempts to murder, to commit dacoities and extortion which are offences under the Aims Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Penal Code. In the charge it was further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy: (a) a revolver and an automatic, pistol were stolen on February 19, 1931, and July 13, 1931, respectively; (6) a dacoity was committed in the godown of Manohar Bhagat Dhyan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1935All162
Harris, J.1. In this case which has been referred to as the Agra Conspiracy Case all six appellants were charged with conspiracy, the charge being that between February 1931 and August 1932 at Agra, they jointly and severally agreed and conspired together with one another and with Dau Dayal, who is absconding, and also with Uma Shankar, Ram Nath and Vishwa Nath, approvers, and with other persons known or unknown and not before the Court, to do or cause to be done jointly and severally illegal acts, the illegal acts being to collect and possess firearms and ammunition and explosive substances, to commit attempts to murder to commit decoities and extortion which are offences under the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Penal Code. In the charge it was further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy : (a) a revolver and an automatic pistol were stolen on 19th February 1931 and 13th July 1931, respectively; (b) a dacoity was committed in the godown of Manohar Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All17
ORDERKing, J. 1. One Kifayatullah Khan was Convicted under Section 19 (f), Arms Act of 1878, for being in possession of 340 patakhas without a licence. The learned Sessions Judge recommends that the conviction be quashed.2. The patakhas are ' l 1/2 to 2' in diameter. They contain a very small quantity of chlorate of potassium mixed with sulphide of arsenic, together with small pieces of kankar, wrapped, and rolled in several layers of paper so as to form a small ball. When thrown on the ground they explode with a report. These patakhas or crackers are customarily used by children at the time of shabarat just as crackers of a rather different kind are . generally associated with Christmas festivities. Hitherto no licence has been required even for their sale, much less for their possession, probably because they are regarded as mere playthings. They are said to be sold at the rate of 8 for one pice.3. It seems prima facie astonishing that such insignificant crackers could be regarded as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1050
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. This habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Rajeev Bhatia challenging the order of detention dated 4-12-1997, Annexure 7 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and order dated 15-12-1998, under Section 3(4) of the Act and order dated 20-1-1997, under Section 12(1) of the Act, both passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has also prayed for a directions to the respondents to set him at liberty forthwith.2. The impugned order dated 4-12-1997 was served on the petitioner in district jail, Kanpur Nagar on 5-12-1997. Along with the order of detention, petitioner was also served with the grounds for passing the said order by respondent No, 2. In the grounds, inter alia, it has been stated that on 6-11-1997, at 2.00 p.m. Mohit Kumar Balmiki, Pappu and Vijai Dhobi came on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1932All18; 136Ind.Cas.91
Sen, J.1. The person concerned in this criminal reference is one Joti Prasad Gupta, an advocate of this Court, practising at Meerut. On 13th April 1930, he made a speech on the Barafkhana Ground at Meerut before an audience consisting of about ten thousand persons in which he urged them to break the salt law. He also sold certain packets of contraband salt said to have been manufactured at Ghaziabad. He was prosecuted under Section 9(a), Salt Act (Act 12 of 1888) and under Section 117, I.P.C., before a Magistrate First Class and was convicted of both the offences. He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under the former section and to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment under the latter section. The sentences were directed to run consecutively.2. Before the Magistrate Joti Prasad Gupta 'took no part in the proceedings.' He refused to say anything in his defence and declined to produce any evidence on his behalf.3. He preferred no appeal against his conviction or sentence.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1921)ILR43All623; 64Ind.Cas.868
Stuart, J.1. The following facts are established on the evidence. Fazal Ilahi is a dealer carrying on business in Allahabad. He deals in fire-works as well as in other articles. Previous to the Shabbarat fastival of the 5th June, 1917, he proceeded to various centres of trade, to purchase fire-works. He went to Calcutta, Bombay, Benares and Cawnpore. He finally purchased four boxes of Chinese crackers in Cawnpore, each of which contained 1,600 packets. He consigned these four boxes at the Collectorganj Parcels Office of the East Indian Railway Company, Cawnpore, to himself at Allahabad, by a parcels forwarding note, dated the 30th of May, 1917, in which the consignment is described as 'four boxes said to contain patakha fire-works' i.e., Chinese crackers He signed the forwarding note giving as his address Chauk, Cawnpore. This was apparently the address at which he was staying while he was in Cawnpore. His permanent address is in Allahabad.2. He booked the consignment at the parcels of...
Tag this Judgment!