Gujarat Court March 1954 Judgments
Koli Bhagu Ranchhod and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ31
Baxi, J.(1) These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against their conviction and sentence for the offence of committing a dacoity in the village of Sanosara. Appellant 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 109, accused 1 in the lower Court, was convicted Under Section 395 read with Section 397, IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted of the offence Under Section 19(e), Arms Act, and sentenced' to six months' rigorous imprisonment, both the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant 2, accused 4 in the lower Court, was convicted Under Section 395, I. P. O., and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The nppellant Chana Bechar of Criminal Appeal No. 112/53, accused 2, was convicted Under Section 395, IPC and sentenced to-seven years' rigorous imprisonment.(2) The case for the prosecution, which is fully stated in the judgment of the Sessions Judge,... was the three appellants and three others, viz., accused 3, 5 ana 6, visited the village of i...
Tag this Judgment!Aher Karna Rukhad Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ27
Baxi, J.(1) This revision is against the order of the Sessions Judge, Central Saurashtra Division, confirming in appeal the applicant's conviction under '8. 324, I. P C. and sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment.(2) The facts as found by the Sessions Judge are as follows:The applicant was in possession of a certain field as a mortgagee in possession from the complainant Jlwa and his brother Nathu. Disputes had arisen between the parties about possession and cross-complaints had been filed by the parties which has however ended In acquittal. An application Under Section 4, Mamlatdars Courts Ordinance was made by Nathu to the Mamlatdar for a declaration that he was in possession of the field and the Mamlatdar had held in that application that the possession must be considered to be that of the applicant and referred him to a civil Court.On 20-7-52 the applicant and some others went to the field and started sowing operations. The complainant Jiwa, his brother Nathu, Jiwa's wife ...
Tag this Judgment!Masru Bhavsingh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ56
Chhatpar, J.(1) This revision application is to revise an order of Mr. M. C. Sheth, the First Class Magistrate, Jasdan, rejecting an application of the applicants for a de novo trial.(2) The Vinchhia Sub-police station registered a case against the applicants Under Section 326, IPC which was changed into a case Under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC Now this offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. The case was started after a charge-sheet was sent to the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Jasdan on 22-6-1953. The First Class Magistrate then was Mr. M. M. Modha, who recorded good part of the evidence. He was thereafter transferred and succeeded by Mr. M. C. Sheth, before whom the application was made for a de novo trial, the charge not having been framed till the transfer of Mr. Modha.(3) The question of law that arises is whether the accused is entitled as of right to a de novo trial by virtue of-clause (a) of proviso to Section 350, Criminal Procedure Code. Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Luvana Vaghumal Kherajmal Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ63
Baxi, J.(1) The appellant was convicted for the offence-Under Section 302 IPC of murdering his wife-and sentenced to transportation for life.He is a displaced person and lived with his-wife and three daughters in a room on the ground floor of a building in Kutiana. The adjoining, rooms on the ground floor are occupied by Jivat-mal Lalchand. The rooms on the upper floor are occupied by Timamal Sabumal. Across the-road and in front of the deli of the appellant's, house live Dadumal Devandas and Kanayala Sunderdas.The appellant's father-in-law Anandmal Asan-das, who lives in Bhavnagar, had come two days before the offence to take the appellant's wife with him. The offence is alleged to have been committed during the night between 4-4-53 and 5-4-53.According to prosecution the appellant was sleeping with his wife and their youngest daughter in the room. Jiwatmal and the appellant's two other daughters were sleeping in the court yard. Anandmal was sleeping on the floor with Timamal.At about...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›