Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All306
Knox, J.1. The accused has been convicted of an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Of the serious nature of the offence there can be no doubt.2. The learned Magistrate who convicted the accused said not one word too strong in his judgment about the nature of the offence. He adds, however, that in consideration of the youth of the accused (for he is only twenty years of age), and that he is apparently of a respectable family, and from his appearance seems rather weak than deliberately criminal, lie proceeds to pass a sentence which would have been a light sentence for an offence under the section under which the accused was convicted.3. Taking all the learned Magistrate had said into consideration, it appeared to me that this was a case to which the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were intended to apply. It was necessary, however, to be satisfied that matters, which had not been pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All372
Knox, Blair and Banerji, JJ.1. The question referred to us is whether a certain document which is upon the record is a release or a conveyance, or whether it is any other kind of document liable to stamp duty, such as a transfer under Schedule i, Article 62, Clause (e) of the Act.2. The document is one in which, one Babu Reoti Saran, a certified purchaser of property sold in execution of a decree, recites that the real owner of the decree, and the real purchaser of the property from first to last and throughout, has been his brother, Babu Rnghubir Saran. The executant adds that the document, which he calls an agreement, is given by way of release that it may be of use.3. The term 'conveyance' has been defined in Act No. II of 1899. Looking to the document as it stands, it cannot be said that it is an instrument by which property is transferred inter vivos. The writer says that he has nothing to transfer, and he does not pretend to transfer anything. On the other hand, we find upon turn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All309
Blair, J.1. The order for payment of so much fine per day so long us the building continues to stand is illegal. The addition of such an order is premature. There must be proof of a continuing offence before the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to make such an order arises. That portion, therefore, of the order will be set aside. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ram Krishna Biswas v. Mohendra Nath Mozamdar (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 565....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All312
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. The decree of the learned Subordinate Judge in this case cannot be upheld. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and taking of the partnership accounts. Thereupon an agreement was entered into between the parties to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration, and an order was made by the Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, referring the suit to arbitration on the 27th of June 1898. The arbitrators appointed were one Debi Prasad and one Maulvi Ahsan-ullah, who were respective pleaders for the parties in the suit. A number of proceedings were recorded by these arbitrators, and amongst others a proceeding of the 7th of August, 1898, in which it was stated that 'the parties would accept and admit the decision of the case as made jointly by Pandit Mangli Prasad, the plaintiff and Shaikh Nasib Ali, the defendant.' Nothing appears to have been done by these parties so named; but on the 8th of August...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All315
John Stanley, C.J.1. A rule in this case was issued, calling upon the Magistrate to show cause why his order of the 21st of January, 1902, passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should not be set aside, on the ground that the same was passed without hearing the evidence of any of the witnesses who were produced on behalf of the second party, Lala Nathu Mal, and such other order passed as the Court might think fit. The rule was issued by me under a misapprehension as to the facts. I understood from a statement of the learned vakil who made the application that none of the witnesses who were called on behalf of the second party had been examined. It, however, now transpires that no less than ten witnesses were examined on his behalf. It appears that in addition to these ten witnesses summonses had been issued for the attendance of 21 other witnesses, and that none of these last-mentioned witnesses were examined by the Magistrate, inasmuch as he believed that the evid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All346
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this reference. It is contended that the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 439 apply. We are not prepared to accede to this contention, or to say that we shall in no case entertain a reference simply because of what is laid down in that paragraph. At the same time the fact remains that it was open to the Local Government to present an appeal from this acquittal. Where the Local Government do not adopt this procedure, or where the Magistrate does not move the Local Government to adopt this procedure in cases where it could be adopted, and sends to us direct, we think it expedient, as a general rule, not to exercise our powers of revision. We refuse to entertain the reference. Let the record be returned....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All317
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh, by which he allowed damages to the extent of Rs. 2,576 to the plaintiff for alleged malicious prosecution. It appears from the evidence in the case that on the 12th of September 1898, the defendant was severely beaten by several persons and had an arm fractured. He made a report at the police station that four persons whom he named had assaulted him. Subsequently he presented a petition of complaint to the Criminal Court, in which to the four persons whom he had charged with the assault upon him, he added the name of a fifth, namely, one Jugal Kishore. In the ordinary course the defendant was required to make a statement upon oath of the occurrence previous to the issue of process; and in the course of his examination, in detailing the circumstances of the assault, he said that Mathura Prasad, the plaintiff, in the course of the assault, came from behind and called out 'beat.' The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All348
John Stanley, C.J., Blair and Burkitt, JJ.1. In this matter a petition has been presented to the High Court by Pandit Padma Dat Joshi, praying that certain orders of the Commissioner of Kumaun refusing to enrol him as a pleader under Section 8 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879) qualified to practise in the Courts of the Sessions Judge of Kumaun and of the Subordinate Magistrates, in all the Revenue Offices, and also in the Commissioner's Court in respect of the cases referred to in Rule (11) of the Kumaun Rules, may be set aside, and that the Commissioner of Kumaun may be directed to enrol him as such pleader, and to permit him to practise in the said Courts and Offices.2. It appears that the pleader, being duly qualified in that behalf, applied to this High Court to be admitted and enrolled as a pleader of this Court, and was duly enrolled as such on the 19th of August 1898. Subsequently he made several applications to the Commissioner of Kumaun for license to practise as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All356
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. The sole plea argued before us was that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction either to retransfer the trial of this case to the Subordinate Judge, or to hear the appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge. It appears that one Kenney, who is respondent before us, presented an application to sue in forma pawperis in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. The District Judge of Cawnpore, acting under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, withdrew this application and decided it himself. After deciding it, he retransferred the suit for trial to the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It is this order of transfer, and all that followed it, which is impugned by the appellant. In support of this contention the learned advocate for the appellant drew our attention to the case of Amir Begam v. Prahlad Das Weekly Notes 1902 p. 66. That case is undoubtedly an authority. The only way in which the Learned Counsel for the respondent tried to distinguish it is, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All358
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground of misjoindor of defendants and of causes of action, The property which was claimed originally belonged to one Munawwar Ali Khan. The plaintiff alleged himself to be the purchaser of the interests of Masit-un-nissa and Abdul Hasan, two of the heirs of Munawwar Ali Khan, and he claimed a portion of the shares purchased by him agaiust Sajjad Husain Khan, another heir of Munawwar Ali Khan, who, he asserted, had withheld possession from the plaintiff's vendors, and had transferred a portion of the property to the other defendants. The 'plaintiff's title was acquired under two sale-deeds, one dated the 28th of May 1887, and the other dated the 10th of November, 1892. The Court below has held that the plaintiff had separate causes of action; that those causes of action had accrued separately against the different defendants; and that there was a misjoi...
Tag this Judgment!