Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
MOHD. HAMID HUSSAIN, J.
Nem Chand - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P - Respondent
Criminal Reference No. 362 of 1971.
Decided On : 02-02-1972
JUDGMENT
Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. - This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly, for setting aside the order dated 16th February 1971 passed by the Asstt. Sessions Judge in a Criminal Trial, directing the accused Nem Chand on whose behalf adjournment was sought, to pay the expenses of the prosecution witnesses who were in attendance on that date.
2. The application for adjournment as moved on behalf of Nem Chand by his counsel Sri D. N. Tandon and the application was accompanied by a medical certificate to the effect that the applicant Nem Chand was suffering from typhoid and was confined to bed and was unable to attend the court. It appears that the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge accepted the medical certificate in support of the application for adjournment and adjourned the case but thought it proper to require the applicant to pay the expenses of the prosecution witnesses. I have seen the order of the Asstt. Sessions Judge dated 16 February, 1971 which is on the order sheet. The order of the Asstt. Sessions Judge requiring the applicant to pay the expenses of the prosecution witnesses does not appear to be a proper order since the applicant was confined to bed on account of typhoid.
3. The order of the Asstt. Sessions Judge dated 16 February, 1971 is set aside with regard to the applicant being required to pay the expenses of the prosecution witnesses who attended the court on that date. In case the expenses have been paid by the applicant, the same will be refunded to him.
4. The reference is accepted.
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
