Skip to content

Gujarat Court September 1952 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.

Sep 23 1952

State (Sessions Judge) Vs. Haku Khoda

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Sep-23-1952

Reported in: 1953CriLJ1521

Baxi, J.1. The Sessions Judge, Central Saurashtra District, has made this reference bringing to our notice the order of the First Class Magistrate Rajkot, passed in Criminal Case No. 14 of 1952 acquitting the opponent of a charge under Section 66(b) of the Prohibition Act.2. The facts of the case are very simple. The opponent, a police constable, was found in a drunken condition in a cinema theatre in Rajkot and on the complaint of the doorkeeper he was taken in custody and sent to the Doctor who found that he was drunk and was not in a position to take care of himself. He was thereupon put up for trial before the learned Magistrate under Section 66(b) of the Prohibition Act and was tried summarily and acquitted. The opponent's defence was that he had taken Eau de Cologne as he was suffering from cold. The prosecution examined the Doctor, the complainant and the cinema doorkeeper while the opponent examined Chhagan Harjivan who also serves in the police headquarters. After hearing the ...


Sep 23 1952

State Vs. Vipra Chhaganlal Kalidas

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Sep-23-1952

Reported in: 1953CriLJ1268

Baxi, J.1. The opponent was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Veraval, under Section 161, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Sorath. Division, confirmed the opponent's conviction and sentence. The State has now applied for enhancement of the opponent's sentence. The opponent on his part disputes the correctness and the legality of his conviction.2. The opponent was the Chitnis in the office of the Mamlatdar, Veraval, and it is alleged that on or about 14.6.1950 he received Rs. 50/- by way of illegal gratification from Rajput Kachra Hansraj of Khandeli in connection with some application which was pending in the Mamlatdar's office. The opponent's prosecution had been sanctioned by the Collector by his order No. EST/4293 of 1950 dated 8.7.1950 which reads as follows:Under Section 6 of Prevention of the Corruption Act 1947, sanction is accorded to prosecution of Chhaganlal Kalidas, Chitnis clerk, Veraval-Patan Mamlatdar's Office ...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial