Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
P. C. BANERJI, J.
Bhikam Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Emperor through Gobind Ram - Respondent
Decided On : 22-09-1917
JUDGMENT
1. The applicants have been convicted under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the conviction u/s 323 is concerned, it cannot upon the findings be questioned in this case and it must be maintained. : As regards the conviction u/s 448 I do not think that the applicants were guilty of criminal trespass. Phul Singh and Lai Singh obtained a decree against one Bhara from the Court of Small Causes. This decree they transferred to Bhikam Singh. Process was taken but for execution of the decree and some, cattle were to be attached as the property of Bhara. The applicants went with the Civil Court amin for the purpose of attaching the cattle. They were asked by the amin to bring out the cattle and they did so. The cattle were apparently in the house of the complainant Gobind Singh. It has not been found that the cattle did not belong to Bhara. On the contrary I am informed that a Civil Court has held that they did belong to Bhara and had been properly attached as his property. Anyhow it not having been proved that the cattle belonged to Gobind Singh, the decree-holder and his supporters were justified in having the cattle seized. It cannot be said that in taking the cattle out of the complainant's house where they had been kept, the applicants were guilty of criminal trespass. The conviction under that section cannot, in my opinion, be supported. The result is that I set aside the conviction under that section, acquit the applicants of an offence under that section and direct that their bail bond be cancelled. The conviction u/s 323 and the sentence passed under that section are maintained.
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
