Delhi Court November 1966 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1966 Page 2 of about 17 results (0.019 seconds)Kesho Parshad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi51
1) Kesho Pershad appellant appeals from his conviction under S.5(2) read with S.5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. He has also been convicted under S.161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the same period of imprisonment, the two sentences running concurrently.2) The facts giving rise to this case are that one Mani Ram serving in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as sweeper in the area of West Patel Nagar was immediately subordinate to Kesho Parshad, Assistant Sanitary Inspector, (accused -appellant). Mani Ram requested Kesho Prashad to accommodate the former's brtoher Ram Nath against a temporary vacancy. Kesho Parshad accordingly provide a job to ram Nath but on payment of Rs.5 as bribe. Later he received Rs. 15 and again Rs.30 more from Mani Ram as a consideration for allowing his brtoher Ram Nath to continue in the employment. A few days before 10-11-1964, Ram Nath lost his job and in order to re appoint him Kesho Parsh...
Tag this Judgment!Tilo Ram Karam Chad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi71
(1) In this criminal revision, Tilo Ram accused-petitioner assails his conviction under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate had taken a lenient view of his offence, because he was lame from one leg and had, thereforee, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment imposed a fine of Rs.600 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge further reduced the sentence of fine from Rs.600 to Rs.400 of course maintaining his conviction.(2) The facts of the case are that on 19-12-1962 Food Inspectors Lekh Raj Bhatt, Ram Gopal and Y.P. Bhatia visited the Jai Bharat Rice and General Mills on Najagrarh road and took four samples of til oil. It is nto denied that the accused had stored til oil manufactured by him. Lekh Raj Bhatt disclosed his identitity and purchased 375 grams of til oil for analysis on payment of 62 paise. The sample was divided into three parts and poured into three clean and d...
Tag this Judgment!Shadi Lal Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation Through Its S ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi48; 3(1967)DLT2
ORDER1. The petitioner claims to be a displaced person having settled in Delhi immediately after the partition of the country. It has been admitted on behalf of the petitioner that he did nto have a verified claim in his favor. The petitioner claims that he is the alltotee of plto No. 16, Ward No. Xiii, Delhi, which had a superstructure in dilapidated condition at the time of alltoment. It is further alleged by the petitioner that since the superstructure was unfit for habitation, he, with the consent of the Custodian, rebuilt the same at his own expense and spent Rs. 3,000/- thereon.2. The petitioner applied for transfer of the above-mentioned property but his request was declined on the ground that the value of the plto was Rs. 10,615/-. The plto was, thereforee, advertised for auction. The petitioner appealed against the valuation of the property and contended that in arriving at the figure of Rs. 10,615/- the value of the superstructure had been wrongly included. The appeal was dis...
Tag this Judgment!Tillo Ram Karam Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1295
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this criminal revision, Tillo Ram accused-petitioner assails his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate had taken a lenient view of his offence, because he was lame from one leg and had, thereforee, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment imposed a fine of Rs. 600 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge further reduced the sentence of fine from Rs, 600 to Rs. 400 of course maintaining his conviction.2. The facts of the case are that on 19-12-1962, Food Inspectors Lekh Raj Bhatt, Ram Gopal and Y. P. Bhatia visited the Jai Bharat Rice and General Mills on Najafgarh road and took four samples of til oil. It is nto denied that the accused had stored til oil manufactured by him. Lekh Raj Bhatt disclosed his identity and purchased 375 grams of til oil for analysis on payment of 62 Paise. The sample was divided into three parts and poured int...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Singh Vs. Gurcharan Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi35
ORDER(1). This is a defendant's revision directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 7-9-1966 granting him relief to appear and defend the suit in question subject to the condition that he deposits in each by way of security the suit amount of Rs. 21,800/- together with the sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of estimated costs on or before 24-9-1966. It may be stated that the suit had been instituted under order. 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2). On revision, the learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the condition imposed by the Court below is very onerous because the entire amount along with the estimated costs have been directed to be deposited in cash. This according to him, is arbitrary and unjust. (3). The Court below has dealt with the defense and holding it to raise a triable issue granted leave, but nto being impressed by the defense, It is ordered the amount to be deposited in cash. This order is obviously passed in the exerc...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Ram Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT161
Dua, J.(1) Kalu Ram the accused-petitioner was convicted by Shri Permanand Gupta, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, on 21 12.1965 under section 380, Indian Penal Code, for having committed theft at the premises of the Irwin Hospital, New Delhi, by removing coins dishonestly from the public telephone call botoh and sentenced to rigorous impisonment for one year. On appeal this conviction was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the sentence reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. On revision in this Court, a learned Single Judge while admitting the revision, ordered release of the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate. I am informed by counsel at the bar that the petitioner has undergone rigorous imprisonment for one month. (2) The facts relating to the present case are that on 3-6-1965, the petitioner was seen at about noon time removing coins with the help of a piece of wire from the public telephone call botoh installed in the Irwin Ho...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Joshi Vs. Director of Estates, Government of India, New Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi86
ORDER(1) The petitioner challenge the cancellation of alltoment to him of the residential quarter in dispute and the legality of the ntoice (Annexure `G' to the writ petition) dated 5-4-1965 under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Eviction of (Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) calling upon the petitioner to show cause on or before 2-5-1965 why an order of eviction should nto be made against him on the ground that he is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises.(2) According to the petitioner's averments, he is a quasi-permanent employee of the Government of India being an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Trade Mark Registry, Government of India, New Delhi. He was alltoted the Government quarter in question in Rama Krishna Puram, New Delhi in January, , 1963, the alltoment to be effective from 5-2-1963 when he took its possession. On 19-9-1964, he came to know from a memorandum addressed to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Registry Office, In...
Tag this Judgment!