Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Nihal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR9All348
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentNihal
Excerpt:
.....board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - munshi kashi prasad in that case was good enough to lay before me all the information that was obtainable in reference to the practice and procedure among the hindus in the matter of dedication or setting loose these bulls upon the death of a relative, and from that information it was placed beyond doubt that, as understood among men of that religion, the person letting loose the animal, by the act of so doing, surrendered and abandoned all proprietary rights therein......the information that was obtainable in reference to the practice and procedure among the hindus in the matter of dedication or setting loose these bulls upon the death of a relative, and from that information it was placed beyond doubt that, as understood among men of that religion, the person letting loose the animal, by the act of so doing, surrendered and abandoned all proprietary rights therein. my brother brodhurst in the case of queen-empress v. jamura, weekly notes, 1884, p. 87, obviously adopted this view, which i hold to correctly represent the real condition of things. this being the case, i am not disposed in any shape to depart from my ruling referred to by me, or to modify the opinion i then expressed. this application for revision, therefore, must be allowed, upon the.....
Judgment:

Straight, J.

1. The case, decided by me, of Queen-Empress v. Bandhu. I. L. R., 8 All., 51, was determined after very full and careful discussion and prolonged consideration. Munshi Kashi Prasad in that case was good enough to lay before me all the information that was obtainable in reference to the practice and procedure among the Hindus in the matter of dedication or setting loose these bulls upon the death of a relative, and from that information it was placed beyond doubt that, as understood among men of that religion, the person letting loose the animal, by the act of so doing, surrendered and abandoned all proprietary rights therein. My brother Brodhurst in the case of Queen-Empress v. Jamura, Weekly Notes, 1884, p. 87, obviously adopted this view, which I hold to correctly represent the real condition of things. This being the case, I am not disposed in any shape to depart from my ruling referred to by me, or to modify the opinion I then expressed. This application for revision, therefore, must be allowed, upon the ground that there was no property capable of being made the subject of dishonest receipt or possession within the meaning of Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and, acquitting; the petitioner, I direct that he be released.


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