Har Sarup And Anr. vs Emperor on 25 March, 1925
In this connection it may be noted that Allsop J, in the case of Bam Sarup v. Emperor 1946 A. w. B, H. c. 433 : A. I. B. (34) 1947 ALL.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.36 seconds)Laljee vs Emperor on 8 July, 1947
In the Pull Bench case, Laljee v. Emperor 1947 A. W. B. R. C. 328 : a. i. r. (35) 1948 ALL. 88 : 48 Cr. L. J. 955 (F.B.), as noted in an earlier part of this judgment, Malik J. made an obiter dictum to the effect that 'law. ful excuse' means any exouse which is recognised as a good excuse in law.
Emperor vs Bhangda Fakira on 12 July, 1926
In some cases e. g. the case of Emperor v. Bhangda Fakira A.I.B. (13) 1926 be m. ESO : 27 or. It. 3.1182, it was definitely laid down by one of the learned Judges, at any rate, that what is a "lawful excuse" is a question which must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. This might clearly include the difficult position of a dealer who might be genuinely anxious to avoid a contravention of the law, but who might yet not know what he was to do with the cloth lying on his hands after the expiry of the due date simply because the authorities concerned had omitted to issue necessary directions in the matter. The position of a dealer in such circumstance becomes an impossible one. His possession which was lawful became unlawful on the stroke of 12 midnight of 8lai December 1944. Even so late as the 16th December 1944, Clause 18B was newly added to the Control Order and the Textile Commissioner was expressly given power to issue directions with a view to securing compliance with this order and yet he never moved in this matter. It may be legitimately urged that the dealers cannot be penalized for a breach of Clause 14, Control Order because the Textile Commissioner did not think it fit to issue necessary directions according to which undisposed of cloth or yarn could be possessed or dealt with after the midnight of Slst December 1944, We may note that after the insertion of the new Clause 14, Control Order, on 4th November 1944 the Textile Commissioner appears to have issued a press note on 8th November 1944 to the following effect:
Chotey Lal And Anr. vs Emperor on 7 May, 1947
In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chotey v. Emperor 1947 A. w. B. h. 0. p. 89 : A. I. B. (34) 1947 ALL. 394 : 48 Cr. L. J. 853 decided by two learned Judges of this Court.
Mithan Lal vs Emperor on 2 September, 1947
The proposition as laid down there does not really help the question of interpretation of the expression "lawful excuse" because it merely paraphrases the word "lawful" In the case of Mithan Lai v. Emperor 1947 A. W. B. H. 0. 893 : A.I.R. 35V 1948 ALL.