Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Surendra Nath Mukerji vs Emperor on 15 April, 1918

Emperor vs C. Dunn on 17 February, 1922

There is also a decision of Stanley, C.J., in Gopi Nath v. Emperor (1906) 3 A.L.J. 770, in which he upheld an order of the Sessions Judge directing a greater amount of property to be restored to the complainant than the amount restored by the trial court. He acted under the authority of Section 423(d). He appears to have considered that he was making a consequential or incidental order, but we should have considered that he was rather amending an effective order of the court below.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

C. Dunn vs Emperor on 17 February, 1922

696 : 32 A. 158 : 7 A. L. J. 103 : 11 Cr. L. J. 203, There is also a decision of Stanley, C, J. in Gopi Nath v. Emperor 3 A, l. J. R. 770; A. W. N. "(1906) 256 : 4 Cr. L. J. 370, in which be upheld an order of" the Sessions Jndge directing a greater amount of properly to be restored to the complainant than the amount restored by the Trial Court. He acted under the authority of Section 423 (i). He appears to have considered that he was mailing a consequential or incidental order, bat we should have considered that he was rather amending an effective order of the Court below.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ram Kala vs Emperor on 7 June, 1945

9. The appellant is entitled to say that if a medical examination of the vital or the material parts of his body had been conducted, he would have been in a position to show that the condition of those parts "negatived the possibility of recent complete penetration" or "proved that there was no penetration." The learned Government Advocate, however, argues that, as the medical examination had taken place more than twenty-four hours after the occurrence, the result would have been inconclusive be cause in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence it is made plain that "the smegma accumulates if no bath is taken for twenty-four hours." This is no answer to the plea of the accused. It was the duty of the prosecution, if, according to the medical jurisprudence, medical examination was capable of yielding conclusive results, to ensure that examination1 within a period of time when conclusive results could be achieved. Speaking in a case of a very similar character in Surendra Nath v. Emperor ('18) 5 A.I.R. 1918 All. 160, Piggott J. has observed that:
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ali Naqi vs Sheikh Baqridu And Ors. on 30 July, 1934

1. The facts out of which this application has arisen are briefly as allows : There was a civil suit for ejectment in the Court of the Munsif, and a post card was filed on behalf of the defendant, of which according to the plaintiff, the date had been altered. The civil suit was settled by agreement, but on the application of the plaintiff, the Munsif made an inquiry into the question whether the defendant should be prosecuted under Sections 193, 465 and 4.71, Penal Code. He came to the conclusion that there ought to be a prosecution and he sent a complaint to the District Magistrate to tibia effect. On appeal, the Additional Subordinate Judge found that the materials on the record did not justify the hope that the prosecution would end in the conviction of the defendant in the civil suit, and set aside the order of the trial Court, I am asked to interfere with this order under Section 115, Civil P.C. on the ground that the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order at the original Court without recording a finding that it was not expedient in the interests of justice that the trial should proceed. I am not at this stage concerned with the correctness of the finding of the lower appellate Court, on the evidence, that a prosecution was bound to fail. What I am asked to hold is, that assuming that finding to be sound ha had no jurisdiction to refuse to proceed with the prosecution, unless he had also found in terms that the prosecution was not expedient in the interests of justice. There is some authority for this argument in the judgment of Sir Lal Gopal Mukerji, in the case of Surendra Nath v. Emperor 1934 All. 385. If the result of that judgment must be held to be that where the appellate Court finds that a prosecution is bound to fail, it must nevertheless allow the prosecution to proceed merely because there was justification for an inquiry into the matter by the trial Court, I must with all respect differ from the decision. There is a right of appeal against the order passed under Section 476, Criminal P.C. containing a complaint, and according to the argument advanced for the applicant, that appeal could only be successful if the lower appellate Court were to find that there had been no good ground for an inquiry, whatever the result of the inquiry might be. I do not wish to express an opinion as to the correctness of the finding by the Judge that there was no ground for hoping that the prosecution would succeed. But as he did come to that conclusion, he was perfectly correct in setting aside the order of the Munsif and refusing to sanction the prosecution. He did not therefore act without jurisdiction or irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction, and the application for revision is dismissed with costs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1