Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Jasauli - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR34All340
AppellantEmperor
RespondentJasauli
Excerpt:
.....administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - there is the further element in this case that musammat jasauli belongs to the well-known caste of naiks in kumaun......of them under sixteen years of age, were wandering about and found their way to the village where musammat jasauli lives--both girls admit that they had run away from their houses--and that they remained nearly one or two days in musammat jasauli's house; and that these facts are not enough to bring the musammat within the four corners of section 366 and do not justify the sentence passed; at the outside the offence is merely a technical offence. i have considered all these points, also the evidence on the record and i consider that the view taken by the learned sessions judge is justified by the evidence on the record. i have been referred to the case bf queen v. gunder singh (1865) 5 w.r. cr. r. 6. with every respect to the learned judges who decided that case, i find myself unable to.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. Musammat Jasauli has been convicted of an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. She has sent in a petition of appeal from jail and has been represented in this Court by learned counsel. It is contended on her behalf that nothing more is established against her beyond this--that the two girls, Dhanauli and Gidauli, both of them under sixteen years of age, were wandering about and found their way to the village where Musammat Jasauli lives--Both girls admit that they had run away from their houses--and that they remained nearly one or two days in Musammat Jasauli's house; and that these facts are not enough to bring the Musammat within the four corners of Section 366 and do not justify the sentence passed; at the outside the offence is merely a technical offence. I have considered all these points, also the evidence on the record and I consider that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is justified by the evidence on the record. I have been referred to the case bf Queen v. Gunder Singh (1865) 5 W.R. Cr. R. 6. With every respect to the learned Judges who decided that case, I find myself unable to agree with the view they took; there is the further element in this case that Musammat Jasauli belongs to the well-known caste of Naiks in Kumaun. I cannot think that she took these two girls out of charity. She made no report to the padhan or the patwari. I dismiss the appeal.


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