Mt. Choki Vs. the State Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Mt. Choki Vs. the State

Decided On : Dec-03-1953

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mt. Choki Vs. the State Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 2 => 'the Constitution of India',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 498',
			(int) 4 => 'Article 15 of the Constitution',
			(int) 5 => 'Article shall',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 497',
			(int) 7 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 8 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 497',
			(int) 10 => 'Article 15 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 498',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 497',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 497'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ORDERRanawat',
			(int) 1 => 'the Court of Sessions',
			(int) 2 => 'the Court of the Sessions',
			(int) 3 => 'Gangaram',
			(int) 4 => 'the Court of Sessions',
			(int) 5 => 'Government Advocate',
			(int) 6 => 'State',
			(int) 7 => 'State',
			(int) 8 => 'State',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'Court'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => 'Five',
			(int) 3 => 'two',
			(int) 4 => '1.',
			(int) 5 => '2',
			(int) 6 => '3',
			(int) 7 => '4.',
			(int) 8 => '3',
			(int) 9 => '3',
			(int) 10 => '1',
			(int) 11 => '5',
			(int) 12 => '6',
			(int) 13 => 'two'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
			(int) 1 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
			(int) 2 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
			(int) 3 => 'Mt. Chokhi'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jhunjhunu',
			(int) 1 => 'Chunna',
			(int) 2 => 'Manbhari',
			(int) 3 => 'Criminal P. C',
			(int) 4 => 'Criminal P. C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Criminal P. C.',
			(int) 6 => 'Jhunjhunu'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mt. Chokhi'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'about seven years',
			(int) 1 => 'the age of sixteen years',
			(int) 2 => '5000/-'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Constitution of India'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'India'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '750561',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 15 and 15(3); <a href="/act/133280/code-of-criminal-procedure-1898-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898</a> - Sections 497 and 498; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 302',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Bail Appln. No. 153 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Mt. Choki',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mt. Choki Vs. the State',
			'casenote' => ' - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Section 2(s): [M.S. Shah, Sharad D. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri,JJ] Workman  Part time employees  Held, Part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in Section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. The ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The control test is one of the important tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. It is also required to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. The other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. A full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. If a person falls under the definition of workman under Section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the I.D. Act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said Act. A perusal of Section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. Since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the I.D. Act. However, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. The control test, the integration test and all the other relevant tests are as much applicable for deciding the status of a person rendering service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. Since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration.  -  5000/- and on furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu for her appearance in the Court.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' O.C. Chaterjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' C.B. Bhargava, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1953-12-03',
			'deposition' => 'Application allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ranawat, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Ranawat, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for grant of bail on behalf of Mt. Chokhi against whom a case under Section 302 read with Section 34. Penal Code is going on in the Court of Sessions Judge at Jhunjhunu. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mt. Chokhi and her husband Chunna have been prosecuted for the murder of their child aged about seven years named Manbhari and the trial has already begun in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Five prosecution witnesses have been examined who are said to be eye witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is stated that both Mt. Chokhi and her husband conspired to murder their child in order to implicate Gangaram and others who are said to be on inimical terms with them. An application for grant of bail was made on behalf of Mt. Chokhi in the Court of Sessions Judge who dismissed it on two grounds: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. that there were no extenuating circumstances in the case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. that under the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> no leniency could be shown to a woman on account of her sex, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application has now been filed under Section 498, Criminal P. C, for grant of bail. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that she is a woman and she has got a young son who is not in jail and there is nobody to look after him. The trial of the case is likely to take very long and the conduct of the case and the cultivation of the petitioner would suffer if she is not released on bail. It is further urged that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in interpreting the provisions of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> in the way in which he did. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Government Advocate has stated that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge about the provisions of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> is not correct. Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In Sub-clause (3) of this Article, it has been provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. The learned Sessions Judge probably did not read Sub-clause (3) before expressing the view that the provisions of Section 497, Sub-section (1) which were in favour of women and children were ultra vires of the Constitution. The position in the Constitution appears to be that it is open to the State to make laws containing special provisions for women and children, but no discrimination can be made against them on account of their sex etc. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The provision of Section 497, Criminal P. C. which gives a special treatment to the cases of the children and women is therefore, not inconsistent with the provisions of Article 15 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The prosecution story which has been stated in the order of the lower Court is an extra-ordinaryone. It is not necessary for this Court at this stage to go into the merits of the case. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased child and it is said that she had another child outside the Jail to be looked after, it is also urged that there is nobody from the family of the accused persons outside the jail who would look to the conduct of the proceedings at the trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 497, Criminal P. C. lays down that when any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on pail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Section 498 the scope for grant of bail is much wider, but ordinarily the principles contained in Section 497 should be considered in such cases. Under Section 497 it is open to a Court to grant bail to a woman even in cases where she is accused of an offence which is punishable with death or transportation for life. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Having regard to the extraordinary manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the other circumstances of the case, it appears not unreasonable to allow this petition and to accept heavy bail of the petitioner in order to safeguard her appearance at the trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. This application is allowed and it is ordered that Mt. Chokhi may be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 5000/- and on furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu for her appearance in the Court. She would remain on bail till such time as the trial Court sees reasons to pass an order to the contrary. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1957Raj10; 1957CriLJ102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '750561'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mt. Choki Vs. the State Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 2 => 'the Constitution of India',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 498',
		(int) 4 => 'Article 15 of the Constitution',
		(int) 5 => 'Article shall',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 497',
		(int) 7 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 8 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 497',
		(int) 10 => 'Article 15 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 498',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 497',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 497'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ORDERRanawat',
		(int) 1 => 'the Court of Sessions',
		(int) 2 => 'the Court of the Sessions',
		(int) 3 => 'Gangaram',
		(int) 4 => 'the Court of Sessions',
		(int) 5 => 'Government Advocate',
		(int) 6 => 'State',
		(int) 7 => 'State',
		(int) 8 => 'State',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'Court'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => 'Five',
		(int) 3 => 'two',
		(int) 4 => '1.',
		(int) 5 => '2',
		(int) 6 => '3',
		(int) 7 => '4.',
		(int) 8 => '3',
		(int) 9 => '3',
		(int) 10 => '1',
		(int) 11 => '5',
		(int) 12 => '6',
		(int) 13 => 'two'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
		(int) 1 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
		(int) 2 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
		(int) 3 => 'Mt. Chokhi'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jhunjhunu',
		(int) 1 => 'Chunna',
		(int) 2 => 'Manbhari',
		(int) 3 => 'Criminal P. C',
		(int) 4 => 'Criminal P. C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Criminal P. C.',
		(int) 6 => 'Jhunjhunu'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mt. Chokhi'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'about seven years',
		(int) 1 => 'the age of sixteen years',
		(int) 2 => '5000/-'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Constitution of India'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'India'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '750561',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 15 and 15(3); <a href="/act/133280/code-of-criminal-procedure-1898-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898</a> - Sections 497 and 498; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 302',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Bail Appln. No. 153 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Mt. Choki',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mt. Choki Vs. the State',
		'casenote' => ' - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Section 2(s): [M.S. Shah, Sharad D. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri,JJ] Workman  Part time employees  Held, Part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in Section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. The ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The control test is one of the important tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. It is also required to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. The other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. A full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. If a person falls under the definition of workman under Section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the I.D. Act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said Act. A perusal of Section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. Since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the I.D. Act. However, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. The control test, the integration test and all the other relevant tests are as much applicable for deciding the status of a person rendering service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. Since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration.  -  5000/- and on furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu for her appearance in the Court.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' O.C. Chaterjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' C.B. Bhargava, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1953-12-03',
		'deposition' => 'Application allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ranawat, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Ranawat, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for grant of bail on behalf of Mt. Chokhi against whom a case under Section 302 read with Section 34. Penal Code is going on in the Court of Sessions Judge at Jhunjhunu. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mt. Chokhi and her husband Chunna have been prosecuted for the murder of their child aged about seven years named Manbhari and the trial has already begun in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Five prosecution witnesses have been examined who are said to be eye witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is stated that both Mt. Chokhi and her husband conspired to murder their child in order to implicate Gangaram and others who are said to be on inimical terms with them. An application for grant of bail was made on behalf of Mt. Chokhi in the Court of Sessions Judge who dismissed it on two grounds: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. that there were no extenuating circumstances in the case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. that under the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> no leniency could be shown to a woman on account of her sex, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application has now been filed under Section 498, Criminal P. C, for grant of bail. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that she is a woman and she has got a young son who is not in jail and there is nobody to look after him. The trial of the case is likely to take very long and the conduct of the case and the cultivation of the petitioner would suffer if she is not released on bail. It is further urged that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in interpreting the provisions of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> in the way in which he did. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Government Advocate has stated that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge about the provisions of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> is not correct. Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In Sub-clause (3) of this Article, it has been provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. The learned Sessions Judge probably did not read Sub-clause (3) before expressing the view that the provisions of Section 497, Sub-section (1) which were in favour of women and children were ultra vires of the Constitution. The position in the Constitution appears to be that it is open to the State to make laws containing special provisions for women and children, but no discrimination can be made against them on account of their sex etc. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The provision of Section 497, Criminal P. C. which gives a special treatment to the cases of the children and women is therefore, not inconsistent with the provisions of Article 15 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The prosecution story which has been stated in the order of the lower Court is an extra-ordinaryone. It is not necessary for this Court at this stage to go into the merits of the case. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased child and it is said that she had another child outside the Jail to be looked after, it is also urged that there is nobody from the family of the accused persons outside the jail who would look to the conduct of the proceedings at the trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 497, Criminal P. C. lays down that when any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on pail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Section 498 the scope for grant of bail is much wider, but ordinarily the principles contained in Section 497 should be considered in such cases. Under Section 497 it is open to a Court to grant bail to a woman even in cases where she is accused of an offence which is punishable with death or transportation for life. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Having regard to the extraordinary manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the other circumstances of the case, it appears not unreasonable to allow this petition and to accept heavy bail of the petitioner in order to safeguard her appearance at the trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. This application is allowed and it is ordered that Mt. Chokhi may be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 5000/- and on furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu for her appearance in the Court. She would remain on bail till such time as the trial Court sees reasons to pass an order to the contrary. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1957Raj10; 1957CriLJ102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '750561'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mt. Choki Vs. the State Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 2 => 'the Constitution of India',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 498',
			(int) 4 => 'Article 15 of the Constitution',
			(int) 5 => 'Article shall',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 497',
			(int) 7 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 8 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 497',
			(int) 10 => 'Article 15 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 498',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 497',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 497'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ORDERRanawat',
			(int) 1 => 'the Court of Sessions',
			(int) 2 => 'the Court of the Sessions',
			(int) 3 => 'Gangaram',
			(int) 4 => 'the Court of Sessions',
			(int) 5 => 'Government Advocate',
			(int) 6 => 'State',
			(int) 7 => 'State',
			(int) 8 => 'State',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'Court'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => 'Five',
			(int) 3 => 'two',
			(int) 4 => '1.',
			(int) 5 => '2',
			(int) 6 => '3',
			(int) 7 => '4.',
			(int) 8 => '3',
			(int) 9 => '3',
			(int) 10 => '1',
			(int) 11 => '5',
			(int) 12 => '6',
			(int) 13 => 'two'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
			(int) 1 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
			(int) 2 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
			(int) 3 => 'Mt. Chokhi'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jhunjhunu',
			(int) 1 => 'Chunna',
			(int) 2 => 'Manbhari',
			(int) 3 => 'Criminal P. C',
			(int) 4 => 'Criminal P. C.',
			(int) 5 => 'Criminal P. C.',
			(int) 6 => 'Jhunjhunu'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mt. Chokhi'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'about seven years',
			(int) 1 => 'the age of sixteen years',
			(int) 2 => '5000/-'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Constitution of India'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'India'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '750561',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 15 and 15(3); <a href="/act/133280/code-of-criminal-procedure-1898-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898</a> - Sections 497 and 498; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 302',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Bail Appln. No. 153 of 1953',
			'appellant' => 'Mt. Choki',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mt. Choki Vs. the State',
			'casenote' => ' - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Section 2(s): [M.S. Shah, Sharad D. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri,JJ] Workman  Part time employees  Held, Part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in Section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. The ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The control test is one of the important tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. It is also required to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. The other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. A full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. If a person falls under the definition of workman under Section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the I.D. Act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said Act. A perusal of Section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. Since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the I.D. Act. However, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. The control test, the integration test and all the other relevant tests are as much applicable for deciding the status of a person rendering service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. Since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration.  -  5000/- and on furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu for her appearance in the Court.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' O.C. Chaterjee, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' C.B. Bhargava, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1953-12-03',
			'deposition' => 'Application allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ranawat, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Ranawat, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for grant of bail on behalf of Mt. Chokhi against whom a case under Section 302 read with Section 34. Penal Code is going on in the Court of Sessions Judge at Jhunjhunu. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mt. Chokhi and her husband Chunna have been prosecuted for the murder of their child aged about seven years named Manbhari and the trial has already begun in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Five prosecution witnesses have been examined who are said to be eye witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is stated that both Mt. Chokhi and her husband conspired to murder their child in order to implicate Gangaram and others who are said to be on inimical terms with them. An application for grant of bail was made on behalf of Mt. Chokhi in the Court of Sessions Judge who dismissed it on two grounds: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. that there were no extenuating circumstances in the case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. that under the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> no leniency could be shown to a woman on account of her sex, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application has now been filed under Section 498, Criminal P. C, for grant of bail. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that she is a woman and she has got a young son who is not in jail and there is nobody to look after him. The trial of the case is likely to take very long and the conduct of the case and the cultivation of the petitioner would suffer if she is not released on bail. It is further urged that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in interpreting the provisions of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> in the way in which he did. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Government Advocate has stated that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge about the provisions of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> is not correct. Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In Sub-clause (3) of this Article, it has been provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. The learned Sessions Judge probably did not read Sub-clause (3) before expressing the view that the provisions of Section 497, Sub-section (1) which were in favour of women and children were ultra vires of the Constitution. The position in the Constitution appears to be that it is open to the State to make laws containing special provisions for women and children, but no discrimination can be made against them on account of their sex etc. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The provision of Section 497, Criminal P. C. which gives a special treatment to the cases of the children and women is therefore, not inconsistent with the provisions of Article 15 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The prosecution story which has been stated in the order of the lower Court is an extra-ordinaryone. It is not necessary for this Court at this stage to go into the merits of the case. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased child and it is said that she had another child outside the Jail to be looked after, it is also urged that there is nobody from the family of the accused persons outside the jail who would look to the conduct of the proceedings at the trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 497, Criminal P. C. lays down that when any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on pail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Section 498 the scope for grant of bail is much wider, but ordinarily the principles contained in Section 497 should be considered in such cases. Under Section 497 it is open to a Court to grant bail to a woman even in cases where she is accused of an offence which is punishable with death or transportation for life. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Having regard to the extraordinary manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the other circumstances of the case, it appears not unreasonable to allow this petition and to accept heavy bail of the petitioner in order to safeguard her appearance at the trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. This application is allowed and it is ordered that Mt. Chokhi may be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 5000/- and on furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu for her appearance in the Court. She would remain on bail till such time as the trial Court sees reasons to pass an order to the contrary. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1957Raj10; 1957CriLJ102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '750561'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mt. Choki Vs. the State Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 2 => 'the Constitution of India',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 498',
		(int) 4 => 'Article 15 of the Constitution',
		(int) 5 => 'Article shall',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 497',
		(int) 7 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 8 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 497',
		(int) 10 => 'Article 15 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 498',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 497',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 497'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ORDERRanawat',
		(int) 1 => 'the Court of Sessions',
		(int) 2 => 'the Court of the Sessions',
		(int) 3 => 'Gangaram',
		(int) 4 => 'the Court of Sessions',
		(int) 5 => 'Government Advocate',
		(int) 6 => 'State',
		(int) 7 => 'State',
		(int) 8 => 'State',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'Court'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => 'Five',
		(int) 3 => 'two',
		(int) 4 => '1.',
		(int) 5 => '2',
		(int) 6 => '3',
		(int) 7 => '4.',
		(int) 8 => '3',
		(int) 9 => '3',
		(int) 10 => '1',
		(int) 11 => '5',
		(int) 12 => '6',
		(int) 13 => 'two'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
		(int) 1 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
		(int) 2 => 'Mt. Chokhi',
		(int) 3 => 'Mt. Chokhi'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jhunjhunu',
		(int) 1 => 'Chunna',
		(int) 2 => 'Manbhari',
		(int) 3 => 'Criminal P. C',
		(int) 4 => 'Criminal P. C.',
		(int) 5 => 'Criminal P. C.',
		(int) 6 => 'Jhunjhunu'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mt. Chokhi'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'about seven years',
		(int) 1 => 'the age of sixteen years',
		(int) 2 => '5000/-'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Constitution of India'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'India'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '750561',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 15 and 15(3); <a href="/act/133280/code-of-criminal-procedure-1898-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898</a> - Sections 497 and 498; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 302',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Bail Appln. No. 153 of 1953',
		'appellant' => 'Mt. Choki',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mt. Choki Vs. the State',
		'casenote' => ' - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. Section 2(s): [M.S. Shah, Sharad D. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri,JJ] Workman  Part time employees  Held, Part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in Section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. The ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the Legislature in the definition of working journalist in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. The expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the duration of working hours for which and appointee is required to work. If a person fulfils the test of a workman, he cannot be excluded from the definition only on the ground that he is a part-time employee. However, the Court will have to apply various tests applicable fort determining the relationship of employer and employee such as the control test, the integration or the organization test. The control test is one of the important tests, but is not to be taken as the sole test. It is also required to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. The other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. A full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. If a person falls under the definition of workman under Section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the I.D. Act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said Act. A perusal of Section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. Since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the I.D. Act. However, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. The control test, the integration test and all the other relevant tests are as much applicable for deciding the status of a person rendering service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. Since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day. Depending on his requirement, the employer may employ two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. Similarly, it may be more convenient for the concerned person to do work on part-time basis rather than for full time. However, convenience per se of the employer or the employee by itself does not confirm or negate the status of such person as a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, but the tests relevant for determining the status of a workman such as control test and integration test will be required to be applied. If a person is working with two employers on part-time basis on the same day, it may result into an anomalous situation and the Court will have to consider the nature of engagement in both the establishments. However, mere possibility of such an anomaly resulting by itself does not take away the status of the concerned person as a workman from both the establishments, but while granting and moulding the reliefs the Court will take these facts into consideration.  -  5000/- and on furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu for her appearance in the Court.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' O.C. Chaterjee, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' C.B. Bhargava, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1953-12-03',
		'deposition' => 'Application allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ranawat, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Ranawat, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for grant of bail on behalf of Mt. Chokhi against whom a case under Section 302 read with Section 34. Penal Code is going on in the Court of Sessions Judge at Jhunjhunu. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mt. Chokhi and her husband Chunna have been prosecuted for the murder of their child aged about seven years named Manbhari and the trial has already begun in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Five prosecution witnesses have been examined who are said to be eye witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is stated that both Mt. Chokhi and her husband conspired to murder their child in order to implicate Gangaram and others who are said to be on inimical terms with them. An application for grant of bail was made on behalf of Mt. Chokhi in the Court of Sessions Judge who dismissed it on two grounds: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. that there were no extenuating circumstances in the case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. that under the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> no leniency could be shown to a woman on account of her sex, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This application has now been filed under Section 498, Criminal P. C, for grant of bail. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that she is a woman and she has got a young son who is not in jail and there is nobody to look after him. The trial of the case is likely to take very long and the conduct of the case and the cultivation of the petitioner would suffer if she is not released on bail. It is further urged that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in interpreting the provisions of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> in the way in which he did. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Government Advocate has stated that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge about the provisions of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> is not correct. Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In Sub-clause (3) of this Article, it has been provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. The learned Sessions Judge probably did not read Sub-clause (3) before expressing the view that the provisions of Section 497, Sub-section (1) which were in favour of women and children were ultra vires of the Constitution. The position in the Constitution appears to be that it is open to the State to make laws containing special provisions for women and children, but no discrimination can be made against them on account of their sex etc. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The provision of Section 497, Criminal P. C. which gives a special treatment to the cases of the children and women is therefore, not inconsistent with the provisions of Article 15 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The prosecution story which has been stated in the order of the lower Court is an extra-ordinaryone. It is not necessary for this Court at this stage to go into the merits of the case. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased child and it is said that she had another child outside the Jail to be looked after, it is also urged that there is nobody from the family of the accused persons outside the jail who would look to the conduct of the proceedings at the trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 497, Criminal P. C. lays down that when any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on pail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Section 498 the scope for grant of bail is much wider, but ordinarily the principles contained in Section 497 should be considered in such cases. Under Section 497 it is open to a Court to grant bail to a woman even in cases where she is accused of an offence which is punishable with death or transportation for life. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Having regard to the extraordinary manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the other circumstances of the case, it appears not unreasonable to allow this petition and to accept heavy bail of the petitioner in order to safeguard her appearance at the trial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. This application is allowed and it is ordered that Mt. Chokhi may be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 5000/- and on furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu for her appearance in the Court. She would remain on bail till such time as the trial Court sees reasons to pass an order to the contrary. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1957Raj10; 1957CriLJ102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '750561'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 302, Section 34, the Constitution of India, Section 498, Article 15 of the Constitution, Article shall, Section 497, Constitution, Constitution, Section 497, Article 15 of the Constitution of India, Section 498, Section 497, Section 497

ORG: ORDERRanawat, the Court of Sessions, the Court of the Sessions, Gangaram, the Court of Sessions, Government Advocate, State, State, State, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court

CARDINAL: 1, 2, Five, two, 1., 2, 3, 4., 3, 3, 1, 5, 6, two

LOC: Mt. Chokhi, Mt. Chokhi, Mt. Chokhi, Mt. Chokhi

PERSON: Jhunjhunu, Chunna, Manbhari, Criminal P. C, Criminal P. C., Criminal P. C., Jhunjhunu

NORP: Mt. Chokhi

DATE: about seven years, the age of sixteen years, 5000/-

WORK_OF_ART: the Constitution of India

GPE: India