Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
KENDALL, J.
Mt. Tirbeni - Appellant
Versus
Mt. Bhagwati - Respondent
Decided On : 22-10-1926
JUDGMENT
Kendall, J. - This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Meerut u/s 488, Criminal P.C., recommending that the order of Mr. Puech, Special Magistrate of the First Class of Meerut, rejecting the application of Mt. Tirbeni to be excused from personal attendance in his Court u/s 205, Criminal P.C., should be set aside. The facts appear to be that two ladies made cross-complaints against each other under Sections 323 and 452, Indian Penal Code, and both those ladies appeared in Court; but Mt. Tirbeni, who is the accused in one of the cases but who had not made any complaint, did not appear in Court. All the ladies belong to a class that observes parda, and the Magistrate's chief reason for refusing to excuse Mt. Tirbeni' a personal attendance was that the other ladies who were related to her, had appeared in Court; but, as the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, they did so of their own free will. The matter appears to be a trivial one from the point of view of the administration of justice, and it is one that would, in the ordinary course, be left to the discretion of the Magistrate; but my attention has been drawn to a case in which a Judge of this Court did interfere in revision in very similar circumstances: vide In the matter of the petition of Rahim Bibi [1883] 6 All. 59.
2. As the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge appears to me to be perfectly correct, I accept his recommendation and direct the Magistrate to proceed with his enquiry and to dispense with the attendance of Mt. Tirbeni, at any rate, until such time as there shall be sufficient evidence on his record to give him reason to suppose that she has been guilty of the offence of which she has been accused.
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
