Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
AIKMAN, J.
In Re: Nand Prasad & Ors.
Decided On : 22-02-1909
JUDGMENT
Aikman, J. - This is an application for the revision of an order of a Magistrate of the first Class directing the applicants to give each a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 100 to keep the peace for one year. An examination of the record shows that the Magistrate has not complied with the procedure prescribed in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The summonses issued to the applicants were not accompanied by a copy of the order made u/s 112 as is required by Section 115 of the Code. Had the summonses to the applicants contained the substance of the information upon which the Magistrate acted, I might have overlooked this defect, but the summonses too are not in accord with the form set out in Schedule V No. 12 of the Code. I am unable to say that the applicants have not been prejudiced by the neglect of the Magistrate to comply with the provisions of the law. I, therefore, allow the application and set aside the order of the Magistrate, dated the 10th of October 1908. If the Magistrate deems it necessary to take further proceedings against the applicants, he must take care to comply strictly with the provisions of the law. The Magistrate has written a very hesitating judgment; if he deems it necessary to take farther proceedings and bind over the applicants to keep the peace he should state clearly in his judgment whether or not he finds on the evidence that the applicants are likely to commit a breach of the peace.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
