Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
C.D. PAREKH, J.
State - Appellant
Versus
Ram Lakhan - Respondent
Cr. Ref. No. 269 of 1971.
Decided On : 03-12-1971
JUDGMENT
C.D. Parekh, J. - This reference has been made by order dated 23rd January, 1971 by the 1st Temp. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. He has recommend- ed that the order dated 3rd June, 1970 passed by shri S. K. Khare, Magistrate Ist Class, Azamgarh, be set aside and he be directed not to admit the affidavit of the accused as evidence in the case and further direction be given to the Magistrate to proceed with the case according to law.
2. One Ram Lakhan was being prosecuted under section 13 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act. After the close of the prosecution case Ram Lakhan was allowed to file an affidavit and he did so, denying the ownership and construction of the disputed building. An objection was raised on behalf of the State about the admissibility of the affidavit on which learned Magistrate passed the following order :--.
"The applicant may cross-examine the witness, if he likes". The learned Judge has given cogent reasons for holding that the order passed by the magistrate was not according to law. He has stated that the matter is neither covered by S. 342-A nor is covered by any other provision of Cr.P.C. whereby an accused person may file an affidavit and that affidavit be taken as evidence in the case.
3. In my opinion the learned judge has correctly made this reference and I agree with the reasonings given by him.
4. The reference is accepted. The order dated 3rd June, 1970 passed by the Magistrate is 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
