Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All690; 165Ind.Cas.189
ORDER1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Meerut under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Presumably the question as to whether the dependants of Alam Singh are entitled to compensation has been submitted for the decision of the High Court under Section 27 of the Act. The District Magistrate is the Commissioner for workmen's compensation appointed by the Local Government. The District Magistrate has differed from the opinion of his predecessor, but has not sent a copy of that opinion nor has he quoted the schedule under which the case would fall. Alam Singh was employed as a tube-well-operator under the Executive Engineer, and while still under training he was employed in a leave vacancy at the Bhatipura Block and met with an accident on 14th May 1935 on account of a fall which disabled his legs and ultimately proved fatal. Act 15 of 1933, containing the latest amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923, applies to this case. Under Schedule 2, Clause 16, a person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1937All535
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages on the basis of an insurance policy for damage done by fire to a motor lorry run by the plaintiff. The motor vehicle had been purchased on 20th January 1931, by Indar Lal Sah and was insured with the Insurance Company, defendant 2. The proposal form of that date is not on the record. Indar Lal Sah had taken this motor lorry on a hire purchase system from defendant 1, The Mutual Indemnity and Finance Corporation Ltd. The Corporation later on transferred this motor lorry to the present plaintiff, Gopal Singh, and on an application made to the Insurance Company, the insurance policy also was transferred by the Insurance Company to the plaintiff. A fresh proposal form was taken on this occasion which is dated 9th March 1931 (pp. 32 to 33). Against the description 'Owner's name' it was stated 'Gopal Singh and/or M.I.F.C.I.'. This proposal form was filled up by the director of the Corporation and was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1941All321
Allsop, J.1. This is an application by Meer Singh, who has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to a fine of Rupees 100 under Rule 38(1)(a) read with Rule 34(6)(j), Defence of India Act. The facts found are that one Earn Narain went to the applicant's shop on 17th June 1940 and bought some flour and gram for five annas and three pies ; he presented a currency note for Rs. 10 and asked for change; the applicant refused to accept the note. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has believed the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution. They say that the applicant made some excuses, but eventually said that he would not accept a currency note. One of them has said that the accused stated that currency notes were no longer legal tender and that Government themselves refused to accept them in their treasuries. The trial Court was of the same opinion as the Judge. Both Courts have found that by refusing to take the currency note in the circums...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All277
Iqbal Ahmad, C. J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C. and the prayer contained in the application is that an order be passed directing that the applicant be set at liberty. The applicant is one Harish Chandra who was a student of the Medical College, Benares Hindu University. The applicant is a resident of Kaimganj in the District of Farrukhabad. He was arrested at Rudain Railway Station on 6th November 1942, under the orders of Raza Ahmad Rizvi, Circle Inspector of Police, Parrukhabad, and has been in custody ever since. Various applications for bail were presented on behalf of the applicant in the Court of the Magistrate and of the Sessions Judge, but those applications were rejected. The application filed by the applicant was supported by an affidavit and it was stated in the affidavit that 'the applicant is a respectable young man and is not previous convict for any political activity' and that 'the applicant is being wrongfully detained under pretext of Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1944All94
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Kedar Nath and Lachhman Das against their conviction by Dr. L.D. Joshi, Special Judge, Meerut, under Sections 3 and 4(b), Explosive Substances Act, 6 of 1908. The learned Judge sentenced each of the appellants to ten years' rigorous imprisonment under the former and, to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under the latter section. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. On the promulgation of Ordinance 19 of 1943 numerous appeals against the decisions of Special Judges and Special Magistrates were filed in this Court and, as in most of the appeals the validity of the Ordinance was assailed, the hearing of the appeals was deferred till the decision of the question by a Pull Bench A Pall Bench of this Court recently held that the Ordinance was valid. The consideration of the present appeal must, therefore, be approached on the assumption that the trial of the appellants, which culminated in the sentences passed by the Special Judge, had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1948All281
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. This is an application by Moot Chand and others under Section Criminal P.C. These 29 persons were arrested at Roorkee in the district of Saharanpur between 23rd and 25th of November 1947. The arrests started in. this manner. An explosion is said to have taken-place in Roorkee in which one Dasoundhi is a said to have been injured. It is also said that Mool Chand applicant was arrested at or near the spot immediately after the explosion on suspicion of having been concerned in it. Dasaundhi took Mool Chand to the thana on 23rd November 1947 and made a report under Section 307, Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4, Ex-plosive Substances Act, 6 [vi] of 1908. Then began an investigation into those specific offences. It is said that Mool Chand made certain disclosures to the police. In consequence of those disclosures and of the investigation by the police into this report of Dasaundhi, the remaining 28 applicants were arrested between the dates given by me above. Two of these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1948All369
Mootham, J.1. This is an application in revision which raises the questions of the validity of Section 10 and of the effect of Section 18, U.P. Communal Disturbances Prevention Ordinance, 1947, (U.P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1947).2. The applicant pleaded guilty of being in possession of a sword for which he possessed no licence; and, as the offence was committed in an area which had been declared under the Ordinance in question to be a communally disturbed area, he was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of an offence punishable under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and Section 10 of the Ordinance, and under the latter section sentenced to imprisonment for the term of three years. In imposing a sentence for a term exceeding that which he was empowered to pass under Section 82, Criminal P.C., the learned Magistrate acted in exercise of powers he believed to have been conferred upon him by Section 18 of the Ordinance. An appeal to the learned Sessions Judge of Agra was dismissed.3. Now Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All277
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is a revision by Sughar Singh against his conviction under Section 19(f), Arms Act, by a Magistrate, first class, Mainpuri, the appeal against the conviction having been dismissed by the Sessions Judge.2. The facts leading to the applicant's conviction are that on the search of his house a single barrel country, made muzzle-loading pistol, wrapped in cloth, some gun powder, an iron rod of pistol and three live percussion caps and hand-made lead shots weighing 21/2 tolas were recovered from a special hole inside the wall of a room inside the house. This hole was three feet deep and had an opening six inches square.3. In this house lived Sughar Singh with his sons and his younger brother Pahunchi. Sughar Singh is aged 40 years and Pahunchi's age is 26.4. Both these brothers were tried for the offence under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, and were convicted by the Magistrate. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Pahunchi and maintained the conviction of Sugh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1950CriLJ61
Mustaq Ahmad, J.1. On the facts found by the learned Sessions Judge is this case, and having regard to a for other circumstances which I shall notice, the conviction of the appellants Majid Khan and Bundu Khan was, in my opinion, almost impossible. They were convicted each under Section 4(b), Explosive Substances Act (vi [6] of 1908) and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut, and they appeal against the same.2. The case, arose in the following manner. On 13th June 1947, at 10-30 P.M., one Dwarka Prasad lodged a report at the police station Baghpat to the following effect:In the mosque of mohalla Eangran, Bagbpat town there were three violent explosions. The reports were very loud and caused piano throughout the town. When I went to the scene I found the mosque smothered with smoke and the smell of gun powder prevailing all round. People were coming out of the mosque with articles. There were previous complaints of the collection of aroma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All369
Seth, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an interlocutory order in a pending criminal case. Ordinarily, this application should have been dismissed on this ground alone. We, however, decided to consider it on merits and to decide the question of law raised by it, because there is an order by the learned Judge, who issued notice upon this application, stating that the question of law raised in this application is of some importance and deserves to be considered by a Bench of two Judges.2. The applicants are on their trial for an offence under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act. During the course of the trial, was tendered in evidence a report from the Inspector of Explosives. It was received in evidence and exhibited without any objection on the part of the defence, the result of which was that the trial proceeded further on the assumption that that document was not required to be formally proved. It seems, that at the time when this document was received in evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!