Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
TUDBALL, J.
Chhedi - Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Ali - Respondent
Decided On : 04-01-1913
JUDGMENT
Tudball, J. - In this case, one Muhammad Ali made a complaint against the present applicant Chhedi, charging him with the offence of cheating, u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code. He had prior to that preferred a complaint under Act XIII of 1859, but withdrawn that complaint and preferred a complaint of cheating. The Magistrate issued process to Chhedi a date was fixed, evidence of the prosecution witnesses was taken and then a further date was fixed for their cross-examination. There were a few postponements and the cross examination did not take place. Than suddenly without (sic). or framing any charge against him or taking any defence and relying on the statements in chief of the prosecution witnesses, the Magistrate passed an order purporting to be under Act XIII of 1859, to the effect that Chhedi was either at once to pay the advance of Rs. 60 or give security for Rs. 60 with one surety, that he would make two pairs of boots every week for Muhammad Ali, in default of carrying out one of the two orders, already mentioned, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, Chhedi was sent to Jail. The case has been referred to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge with the recommendation that the order be set aside. Further comment is unnecessary. The Magistrate has acted quite illegally. There was no case under Act XIII of 1859 before the Magistrate. That Act can only be put in motion by the employer. I set aside the order of the Magistrate and direct that the complaint of Muhammad Ali be heard de novo by some other Magistrate to whom the District Magistrate may think fit to transfer it and not by the Magistrate whose order has just been set aside.
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
