Skip to content


Bahadura Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All304a
AppellantBahadura
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredSahdeo Rai v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- kanhaiya lal, j.1. a notice was issued by a police officer under section 160 of the criminal p.c., requiring the petitioner bahadura to attend the enquiry. he is said to have refused to take the notice. he has been tried and convicted of an offence under section 173 of the indian penal code. this does not, however, amount to an offence of intentionally preventing service: sahdeo rai v. emperor air 1918 all 409.2. the conviction and sentence are, therefore, set aside. the fine, if paid, will be refunded.
Judgment:

Kanhaiya Lal, J.

1. A notice was issued by a police officer under Section 160 of the Criminal P.C., requiring the petitioner Bahadura to attend the enquiry. He is said to have refused to take the notice. He has been tried and convicted of an offence under Section 173 of the Indian Penal Code. This does not, however, amount to an offence of intentionally preventing service: Sahdeo Rai v. Emperor AIR 1918 All 409.

2. The conviction and sentence are, therefore, set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.


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