Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1915)ILR37All289
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. Ismail Khan has been convicted under Section 60A of the Excise Act and under Section 61 read with Section 70 of the Post Office Act. On conviction on the first charge he was fined Rs. 200 and on the second one Rs. 100, The learned Sessions Judge, to whom Ismail Khan appealed, has affirmed the convictions, but referred the matter to this Court for the purpose of having the sentences considered with a view to enhancement. Notice was duly served upon Ismail Khan, and he has been represented by Mr. Hoskins as counsel. Mr. Hoskins on his behalf urges, first, that both convictions were illegal, and that in any event the punishment was sufficient. In our opinion the court below was justified in finding that the accused had been guilty of an offence under Section 60A of the Excise Act and that he was rightly convicted. So far as the conviction under Section 61 read with Section 70 of the Post Office Act is concerned we think that the convic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1915All273; 28Ind.Cas.655
1. Ismail Khan has been convicted under Section 60 A of the Excise Act and under Section 61 read with Section 70 of the Post CMiiee Act; on conviction, on the first charge he was fined Rs. 200 and on the second one Rs. 100. The learned Sessions Judge to whom Ismail Khan appealed has affirmed the convictions but referred the matter to this Court for the purpose of having the sentences considered with a view to enhancement. Notice was duly served upon Ismail Khan and he has been represented by Mr. Hoskins as Counsel. Mr. Hoskins on his behalf urges, first, that both convictions were illegal, and that in any event the punishment was sufficient. In our opinion the Court below was justified in finding that the accused had been guilty of an offence under Section 60A of the Excise Act and that he was rightly convicted. So far as the conviction under Section 61 read with Section 70 of the Post Office Act is concerned, we think that the conviction was not justified by law. Section 70 of the Pos...
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!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All165; 85Ind.Cas.823
Walsh, A.C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against as acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Jhansi of two members of the public, who had been convicted and severely sentenced by the District Magistrate for an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. They had been charged both under Sections 151 and 188 and the Magistrate, without acquitting under Section 151, held that it was superfluous to consider it. The appeal filed by Government treats the charge as one under Section 188. The complaint against the accused is that they, being two Brahmans, and men of education engaged in public life in Jhansi, one of them Raghunath Venaik Dhulekar being a High Court Vakil, and the other Atma Ram Kher being also a High Court Vakil, and Chairman of the Municipal Board of Jhansi, deliberately disobeyed a lawful order of the Sub-Inspector in the streets of Jhansi in the presence of a large number of people. The Sub-Inspector says that he was fetched by a message, and went on a bicycle in c...
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 : 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 : AIR1934All927; 152Ind.Cas.881
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal revision filed on behalf of three persons, Richpal Singh, Khub Singh and Shiamsundar Lal who have been required to furnish security by a Magistrate under Section 110(f), Cr.P.C. for a period of three years and on a reference the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced them to imprisonment on failure to furnish the security required. Various points have been taken in revision in regard to the admissibility of different items of evidence and of different confessions. The facts which gave rise to this proceeding are that on the 6th December 1932 a C.I.D. officer visited Lakhauti College in Bulandsbahr District and arrested the accused Khuh Singh. This enquiry was made as a, result of an assault on a railway train by certain other persons. On the 9th December 1932 the accused Khub Singh was brought before a Magistrate at 7 a.m., and the Magistrate gave him time until 12 noon to reflect on the matter before making a confession and the Magistrate then gave him th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All982; 153Ind.Cas.147
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Nathu Ram who has been convicted under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act (6 of 1908), by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Etawah and sentenced to four years' and six months' R.I. Mr. K.N. Agarwala appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken me through the entire record. Before I deal with the question of fact as to whether the evidence on the record justifies the conviction of the appellant, I should dispose of certain questions of law advanced by learned Counsel. It is said that because of Section 7, Explosive Substances Act, the learned Magistrate who committed the accused to the Court of Session should not have taken cognizance of the case without the consent of the Local Government. That provision of law runs as follows:No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Local Government or the Governor-General in Council.2. It is conceded that no such consent was obtained while the c...
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!