Skip to content


Empress of India Vs. Ram AdhIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1880)ILR2All139
AppellantEmpress of India
RespondentRam AdhIn and ors.
Excerpt:
act xlv of 1860 (penal code, sections 71, 146, 147, 319, 323 - offence made up of several offences--rioting--hurt. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established..........in the case of the queen v. kallachand 7 w.r. cr. 60, disposed of by them on the 29th april 1867, held rioting armed with deadly weapons to be a distinct offence from stabbing a person on whose premises the riot took place, and each to be separately punishable. it appears that in the case of queen v. hargobind h.c.r. n.w.p. 1871, p. 174, decided by this court on 7th july 1871, mr. justice turner held that persons found guilty of rioting may, if the circumstances warrant it, be convicted of the several offences of rioting armed with deadly weapons, culpable homicide, and grievous hurt. the learned judge referred to the case of rabi-ulla mentioned above, and expressed his dissent from the ruling therein, and observed that a different view of the law had heretofore obtained in this court......
Judgment:

Pearson, J.

1. To day it is brought to my notice that the learned Judges Norman and Seton-Karr in the case of the Queen v. Kallachand 7 W.R. Cr. 60, disposed of by them on the 29th April 1867, held rioting armed with deadly weapons to be a distinct offence from stabbing a person on whose premises the riot took place, and each to be separately punishable. It appears that in the case of Queen v. Hargobind H.C.R. N.W.P. 1871, p. 174, decided by this Court on 7th July 1871, Mr. Justice Turner held that persons found guilty of rioting may, if the circumstances warrant it, be convicted of the several offences of rioting armed with deadly weapons, culpable homicide, and grievous hurt. The learned Judge referred to the case of Rabi-ulla mentioned above, and expressed his dissent from the ruling therein, and observed that a different view of the law had heretofore obtained in this Court. It further appears that the learned Judges of the Calcutta Court who disposed of Rabi-ulla's case ruled in a different direction in the case disposed of by them in the following month of April. On the whole the precedents which have been produced are opposed to the contention in this case. It is obvious to remark that rioting and unlawful assembly are offences against the public tranquility, while assault, hurt, etc., are offences affecting the human body. Seeing no sufficient reason for the interference, I reject this application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //