Behari And Ors. vs The State on 16 February, 1953
Sir George Knox, A. C. J. upheld separate sentences under Sections 147 and 323 in -- 'Emperor v. Katwaru Rai', (G).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.71 seconds)Documents citing
Emperor vs Katwaru Rai And Ors. on 15 June, 1917
Emperor vs Padam Singh on 18 March, 1930
101 and the case of Emperor v. Janki Rai A.I.R. 1927 All. 383. No other case than these was referred to by counsel for Padam Singh. We do not propose to consider in detail the cases to which we have referred, and though there was on both sides frequent reference to the scope of Section 199, I.P.C., we do not feel that it is incumbent upon us in this case to say anything whatever as to what may be the scope of that section. We propose to confine ourselves to declaring our view of the meaning of Section 191, I.P.C. Its interpretation, in our view, gives no rise to serious difficulty. In the case before us we are not concerned with any affidavit or any statement taken from the parties or any oral evidence given by Padam Singh. We are concerned with the written statement, in which of course must be included the verification, and with that only.S. 191 says:
Emperor vs Daulat Singh And Anr. on 17 November, 1925
1. This is a Reference by the District Magistrate of Bareilly submitted through the Sessions Judge asking this Court to modify in revision an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. Section 435 does not authorise the District Magistrate to make any such reference. He can refer the proceedings of any inferior Court but he is not entitled to question the propriety of an order passed by a Court of Session. His proper course when he considers that action is necessary is to move the Government to file an application in revision. This has been pointed out many times by this Court and by other High Courts, e.g., Emperor v. Javina Rai 28 A. 91 : 2 A.L.J. 589 : A.W.N. (1905) 198 : 2 Cr. L.J. 515, Emperor v. Ganga 23 Ind. Cas.
1