Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.17 seconds)
Mannalal vs The State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 1982 cites

Kishori Lal And Anr. vs Emperor on 20 April, 1934

11. The fact of Nanga being in service on the relevant date and being in uniform having been proved, the next question emerging for determination is whether he had accompanied Puran Chand in discharge of any duty. This has come on record that Puran Chand, Nanga and Kishore singh were on the patrolling duty in the forest and the suspected stolen wood was seized from the house of the appellant. These three persons were posted in the same jungle and all the three going on patrolling duty for the protection of that reserved forest have rightly been considered to have gone for discharging duty. Assuming for the sake of agreement that the protection of the trees was the duty of Forest Guard only, still the two other Officers entrusted with the duty of the protection of that forest from cattle etc. would also be considered to be attending help to Puran Chand & any injury caused toany one of them while on patrolling duty would be considered to be an injury caused to a public servant. The case of Kishori Lai and Anr. v. Emperor AIR 1934 Allah 1016 is of no help to the learned Counsel for his contention that the act of the three forest employees was illegal. In that case an execution warrant was held to be bad because it did rot comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 21, rule 24 (3) C.P.C. As the warrant was considered to be illegal the applicant was held to have committed no offence in resisting the same.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1