Skip to content


Mukund Ram Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All273; 77Ind.Cas.1001
AppellantMukund Ram
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredEmperor v. Sheo Lal
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 273, offence under - noxious food--knowledge--presumption. - - just like other ingredients of the offence, this also has to be proved, see the case of emperor v......273 of the indian penal code there is nothing on this record to show that mukund ram knew that the baisan was of such a nature as would be unfit for consumption. the learned deputy magistrate seems to think that-such knowledge is always to be presumed. there is no warrant in law for such a presumption; just like other ingredients of the offence, this also has to be proved, see the case of emperor v. sheo lal 26 a. 387 : 1 a.l.j. 64 : a.w.n> 1 cr.l.j. 210. the conviction was, therefore, illegal,2. i accept the reference, set aside 1he conviction and the sentence and direct that the fine, if realised, be refunded.
Judgment:

Gokul Prasad, J.

1. In this case the Deputy-Magistrate has 'not appreciated the effect of the words 'knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink' in Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code There is nothing on this record to show that Mukund Ram knew that the baisan was of such a nature as would be unfit for consumption. The learned Deputy Magistrate seems to think that-such knowledge is always to be presumed. There is no warrant in law for such a presumption; just like other ingredients of the offence, this also has to be proved, see the case of Emperor v. Sheo Lal 26 A. 387 : 1 A.L.J. 64 : A.W.N> 1 Cr.L.J. 210. The conviction was, therefore, illegal,

2. I accept the reference, set aside 1he conviction and the sentence and direct that the fine, if realised, be refunded.


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