Skip to content


Chande Ram Bashaku Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 898 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1953P& H263
ActsIndiand Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498
AppellantChande Ram Bashaku
RespondentState
Advocates: Rajinder Nath Aggarwal, Adv.
Cases ReferredHarnam Singh v. Emperor
Excerpt:
.....or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the..........in -- 'harnam singh v. emperor', air 1939 lah 295 (a), that the word 'detains' in section 498, penal code, implies some act on the part of the accused by which the woman's movements are restricted and this again implies unwillingness on her part and mere persuasion by means of blandishments or similar inducements is not included in the word 'detention'.2. in the present case the whole thing seems to be doubtful. it is not satisfactorily proved that the complainant was married to mst. lali, nor is it satisfactorily proved that there was detention by chande ram of the woman.3. in these circumstance's i am of the opinion that no case has been made out against the petitioner under section 498, penal code. i, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order of conviction and sentence.....
Judgment:

Kapur, J.

1. On a reference made by Din Mohammad J., a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court consisting of Young C. J. and Blacker J. held in -- 'Harnam Singh v. Emperor', AIR 1939 Lah 295 (A), that the word 'detains' in Section 498, Penal Code, implies some act on the part of the accused by which the woman's movements are restricted and this again implies unwillingness on her part and mere persuasion by means of blandishments or similar inducements is not included in the word 'detention'.

2. In the present case the whole thing seems to be doubtful. It is not satisfactorily proved that the complainant was married to Mst. Lali, nor is it satisfactorily proved that there was detention by Chande Ram of the woman.

3. In these circumstance's I am of the opinion that no case has been made out against the petitioner under Section 498, Penal Code. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner, and the rule is made absolute.


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