High CourtsSingle Bench(1919) 01 AHC CK 0027

Sanehi Ram vs Emperor

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 9 January 1919 · Citation: AIR 1919 All 273 : 49 Ind. Cas. 860

HON’BLE JUDGES
George Knox, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 144 words

George Knox, J.—I agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge who has referred this case that no offence u/s 41 (a) of Act XII of 1911 has been proved There is nothing on the record to show that the boy, whoever he was, who ran away, was employed or allowed to work contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. The Act being a special Act, there must be definite evidence to show that the boy was either employed or being allowed to work. The boy may have been there for any purpose. We all know the nature of boys. He may have stolen in for some purpose quite apart from employment or being allowed to work. I set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, or any part of it which has been paid, be refunded.