Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DANIELS, J.
Mata Palat & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 10-01-1923
JUDGMENT
Daniels, J. - These applications arise out of the same riot in Connection with which Appeal No. 819 has just been decided. A cross-complaint was filed by the party who were accused in that case. It was dismissed u/s 203. In his judgment in the riot case the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the cross-complaint should not have been dealt with so summarily and asked the District Magistrate to set aside the order of dismissal. The Magistrate upon this did set aside the order of dismissal, and it is against this order and that portion of the Sessions Judge's order which refers to this matter that the present applications are filed.
2. The applicants' complaint is two-fold. Firstly, they say that if the Sessions Judge wished to take action he should have set aside the complaint himself instead of asking the Magistrate to do so. In the second place, they say that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside without notice to them.
3. As regards the first point, I am, to some extent, in agreement with the applicants, but I do not think that this is a sufficient reason for setting aside the order which has been passed.
4. As to the second point, there are several rulings of this Court and of other Courts, e.g., Angan v. Ram Pirbhan 18 Ind. Cas. 146 : 10 A.L.J. 531 : 14 Cri. L.J. 2 : 35 A. 78, that where a complaint has been dismissed u/s 203 without notice to the accused the dismissal may be set aside without notice to the accused. On the whole, I am not prepared to interfere and I reject the applications.
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
