Delhi Court February 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Rattan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1485; ILR1971Delhi285
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) Whether the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 (Act Xx of 1958) can be invoked by an accused convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 cf the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) is the main question which arises for determination in this revision. In view of F the importance of the matter it was directed by one of us (V. 1). Misra, J.) that it should be heard by a larger Bench. The question has arisen in the following circumstances :- (2) Rattan Lal respondent had stored for sale 'Asian Banbury Cream Biscuits', alleged to be prepared with Maida, sugar, vegetable oil and permitted Chemicals at his shop No. 353-A, Rani Bagh. Shakur Basti, Delhi. On September 29, 1966, a sample of the biscuits was taken by Food Inspector Udey Singh and was duly sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample was adulterated because of the presence of unpermitted colour. A complaint under Section ...
J.C. Chopra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1009
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. The controversy raised is as to whether the Superintendent of Police could have competently filed the complaint Under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and would the court be competent to proceed with the same? The circumstances which furnish back ground to the above said controversy are that a report dated 28th October, by Superintendent of Police, Darya Gani, Under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code to the effect that one Bhag Singh in spite of being asked to defer doing that took away the car in the custody of the petitioner in which certain valuable documents along with cash and ornaments were lying. The report made by the petitioner caused the police to investigate and the ultimate conclusion reached was that the report was false, It is quite intriguing as to why the police resorted to an application for getting the order for cancellation of the case. That matter, however, had nothing to do with the filing of the complaint by the police Under Se...
Shanti Devi Vs. Balbir Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi294
Hardayal Hardy, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of V.S. Deshpande, J., whereby the judgment of an Additional District Judge dismissing the application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 25 of 1955 filed by Balbir Singh Gupta, respondent No.1, was set aside and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in his favor against Shirmati Shanti Devi Who has appealed against the same and is appellant before us. The appellant, Smt. Shanti Devi and her husband Shri Balbir Singh Gupta are Hindus by religion and the marriage between the two was solemnised at Hissar on 16-2-1955 according to Hindu rites. It appears that before the appellant's marriage, her elder sister was married to respondent No.1 and she died about three months before this marriage. There was a child from the first marriage who was however died since then. The parties lived together and a daughter, who is now living with the appellant, was born to them. After th...
S.K. Jani Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi243
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated the 12th December, 1969, whereby he confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under sections 379/511, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the trial court in terms of its judgment dated the 8th of July, , The trial court had sentenced the petitioner to one year's rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offence(2) Mr. R. L. Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, with his incisive ability has taken me through all parts of the case, i.e. the evidence recorded as well as the documents referred to therein. At my request the learned counsel has read the statement of Public Witness 1 twice over. PN P (4) The witnesses in this case beginning with Public Witness 1 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination. (5) The case set up by the defense was that on the same date i.e. 15th March, 1967, Bimla Bai Jain, who has appeared as a defense witness (D.W. 10)...
Hiralal JaIn Vs. the Delhi Administration, (The State)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1375
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. This petition was preferred to assail the order dated the 20th Dec. 1968, and was admitted by my brother P. N. Khanna, J. on the 2nd of July, 1969, when the order passed was:-Notice. Further proceedings stayed meanwhile. File to be called.No certified copies were filed when this-petition was preferred. No certified copies have been filed till today. There is no order relieving the petitioner of the responsibility of filing the certified copies. As a matter of procedure and practice it is erroneous that criminal revision petitions be urged without filing certified copies of the impugned orders. I may have dismissed this petition on this score but having heard Mr. Hira Lai Jain, who is appearing in person, I would like to deal with the submissions which he has made and would dispose of the petition on merits.2. Mr. Jain opened his address by submitting that the very order which he is attacking i. e., the order dated the 20th December, 1968, is a forged orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›