Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All342
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This is an application under Sections 491 and 561A, Criminal P. C. A warrant dated 8th May 1949, was issued by Shri. V. K. B. Pillai, Regional Commissioner (who now takes the place of the Political Agent) of the United State of Rajasthan, under Section 7, Extradition Act, 1903 (XV [15] of 1903) for the arrest of the applicant, Dr. Ram Babu Saxena, and for his removal to the United State of Rajasthan to be delivered to the District Magistrate of Tonk for enquiry into certain offences against the laws of that State which he is said to have committed. The warrant was addressed to the District Magistrate of Naini Tal within whose jurisdiction the applicant resided at that time. The warrant authorised the District Magistrate of Naini Tal to release the applicant on bail if he furnished a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount, The warrant was served upon the applicant at Naini Tal on 23rd May 1949 and he was, thereafter, released on bail a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All3
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. In view of the divergence of opinion between this Court on the one hand and the High Courts of Calcutta, Lahore and Patna and the Chief Court of Sind on the other in regard to the interpretation of Sections 59 and 46, Criminal P. C., the following question has been referred by a Division Bench for decision :'Whether in view of the facts found by us above, Lallu Singh, Bahadur Singh, Thakuri, Sireshtey, Chhotey Lal and Behari had the right to attempt to arrest the appellants and their companions and whether the appellants and their companions had the right to shoot them in their self-defence?'2. The facts found by the Division Bench are that on the night between the 29th and 30th of March 1949, an armed dacoity took place in the house of one Debi Prasad in village Basta in the District of Farrukhabad. There were about 15 or 20 dacoits and some of them were armed with guns and pistols. Kanhaiya Lal, one of the neighbours of Debi Prasad, saw the commission of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1952CriLJ658
Koshi, J.1. This is an application under Section 3(1) of the Cochin Contempt of Courts Act, XXXII of 1111, invoking this Court's jurisdiction to commit the twenty-nine respondents herein for Contempt of the Court of the Second Class Magistrate, Trichur, on the ground that they held a meeting of the parishioners of the Trichur Chaldean Syrian Church in violation of an order passed by the said Court under Section 125 of the Cochin Criminal Procedure Code (Section 144 of the Indian Code) prohibiting any such meeting. The petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof show that during recent years there started serious dissensions among the parishioners of the said Church and that they are now divided into two hostile camps. The petitioner belongs to one faction while most, if not all the respondents belong to the opposite faction. When the respondents wanted to call together a meeting to decide certain questions affecting the church and issued the necessary notices in that behalf sev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad725; (1952)1MLJ550
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition filed against the order made by the learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras in C. C. No. 8583 of 1950.2. The facts are: The petitioner was employed as a Food Inspector in the service of the Corporation of Madras. He was charged by the Special Branch Police for an offence under Section 161, I. P. C. in that he received a sum of Rs. 50 from K. Sarangapani Naicker, a milkman as illegal gratification. The case was tried before the Fifth Presidency Magistrate in C. C. No. 1137 of 1949. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the High Court in Crl. Ap. No. 728 of 1949 and this was disposed of by Panchapagesa Sastry J.3. The relevant portion of the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastry J. is as follows: 'It is conceded by the State Prosecutor that if the sanction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Rutkin v. United States - 343 U.S. 130 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 (1952) Rutkin v. United States No. 195 Argued December 3, 1951 Decided March 24, 1952 343 U.S. 130 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Money obtained by extortion is income taxable to the extortioner under 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Pp. 343 U. S. 131 -139. (a) An unlawful gain, as well as a lawful one, constitutes taxable income when its recipient has such control over it that, as a practical matter, he derives readily realizable economic value from it. P. 343 U. S. 137 . 2. Under the instructions given the jury in the prosecution of petitioner for willfully attempting to evade and defeat federal taxes, the verdict of the jury must be taken as reflecting its conclusion that the money in question was obtained by petitioner by extortion, and there was substantial evidence supporting that result. Pp. 132-137. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad917; (1953)2MLJ189
1. On 1-1-1952 a consignment of illicit opium was despatched by train from New Delhi to Madras and from Madras on to Chidambaram. Acting on some information that he had received, Mr. Khadir Hussain, an Assistant Inspector of Excise who was also a Deputy Prohibition Officer, shadowed the article to Chidambaram. On 5-1-1952 one Paramasivam went to the railway parcel office at Chidambaram, tendered the way bill to the General Parcel Clerk and after signing in the delivery book took delivery of the parcel. At that stage Mr. Khadir Hussain detained him and questioned him. He also seized the parcel which, on examination, was found to contain 33 seers of opium.2. On these allegations Paramasivam and three others were prosecuted before the Sub-Magistrate, Chidambaram. At the trial Mr. Khadir Hussain gave evidence for the prosecution. When he was in the box the Assistant Public. Prosecutor asked him what Paramasivam had told him when questioned by the witness after his arrest. To that question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All689
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. The applicants were prosecuted under Sections 147 and 325 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 147, I. P. C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sis months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 325 read with Section 149, I. P. C.On appeal the conviction was set aside and the case was sent for retrial. During the pendency of the appeal, however, before the applicants were granted bail they had to go to jail for two or three days. But they were released on bail. On retrial the applicants were again convicted under Sections 147, 325 and 323, I. P. C. They were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-under Section 147, I. P. C. and to undergo a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 read with Section 34. I. P. C. and to pay a line of Rs. 25/- under Section 323. The sentences of the applicants were made to run concurrently.On appeal their conviction under Section 147 has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad993
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 432, Criminal P. C. by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, in a batch of four cases before-him, all relating to offences under the Madras Prohibition Act.In C. C. No. 5388 of 1953, there are two accused, of whom the first accused is charged with offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (a), 4 (1) (j) and 24 of the Madras Prohibition Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Act). The second accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (k) and 12 of the Act.In C. C. No. 5389 of 1953, the first accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable-under Sections 4 (1) (a) and 4 (1) (j) of the Act, while the second accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 4 (1) GO and Section 12 of the Act.Similarly, in C. C. No. 5390 of 1953, the offences alleged against the first accused are offences, under Sections 4 CD (a) and 4 (l) (j). Those against, the second accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1957CriLJ954
ORDERChandra Reddy, J.1. The accused was charged before the Sub-Magistrate, Kamalapuram under Sections 4-A and 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act. The case against him was that he was found in a state of drunkenness and was also distilling I. D. Arrack. In support of the prosecution case two witnesses were examined, P.W. 1, the Prohibition Sub-Inspector and P.W. 2, the Sub-Inspector of the Striking Force. The accused, while admitting that he was found in a state of drunkenness, denied that he was distilling ID Arrack at; the scene of offence. The Magistrate acquitted him under Section 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act, as in his opinion it was not made out beyond reasonable doubt that he was manufacturing illicit arrack. He convicted him under Section 4-A of the Madras Prohibition Act having regard to his admission, But he passed no sentence on the accused as he thought that 'the accused was truthful from the beginning to the extent of his drunkenness and also by reason of the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1957CriLJ925
ORDERSubba Rao, C.J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tenali under Section 411, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. A revision was filed against that order, but that was dismissed by Umamaheswaram J. It is represented to me that Umamaheswaram J., made some observations in dismissing the revision, that the . proper course was for the petitioner to approach the Sub-Magistrate for making an order under Section 562(1), Criminal Procedure Code. But there is no record of any such observations.The petitioner filed an application for releasing him on probation of good conduct to the successor of the Sub-Magistrate, who sentenced him to three months rigorous imprisonment. The Sub-Magistrate dismissed it on the ground that he was not competent to revise the previous order made by his predecessor. The above revision has been filed against that order.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!