Gujarat Court July 1960 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.
Soni Bachu Lakhuman Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Guj37; 1960CriLJ1585
ORDER(1) The applicant was convicted under S. 3(1) and S. 4(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junagath, was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in appeal. Hence this revision application.(2) The prosecution case was that the Assistant Superintendent of Police sent a bogus punter Lalji by name to the house of the applicant with a five rupee currency note; that Lalji gave this currency note to the applicant who thereupon asked Lalji to select a girl for the purpose of prostitution. Lalji selected the wife of the applicant, Jaya alias Indumati by name, and both were allowed to go into a room. The police and Panchas then made a raid and found the punter in the company of Jaya in a compromising attitude on a cot. The five rupee currency note was found in the pocket of the applicant. The applicant was prosecuted. He denied that he was guilty, but...
Shri Parshottamdas Ratanlal Vs. State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR89
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a bungalow in Gujarat Middle Class Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Shantinagar Society) at Wadaj Road in Ahmedabad. It was purchased by him in 1942. In his petition he has stated that since 1942 he has been occupying 'the said bungalow with his family in the south wing there'. It is also stated that he and his brother constitute a Joint Hindu Family and that he has no issue and his brother has three sons and seven daughters. Some of his brother's children according to the petitioner reside with him in the bungalow. One of the petitioner's brother's son got married some time before the petition and the petitioner constructed an additional bed-room on the terrace of the bungalow. That was done solely for the purpose of accommodation the newly married couple. The size of the room is 23' x 16' and the new construction cost him Rs. 7,000. In December 1959 the petitioner applied to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for permission to occu...
Ramjibhai Ukabhai Parmar Vs. Manilal Purushottam Solanki and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Guj19
Miabhoy, J.(1) The petitioner, Ramjibhai Ukabhai Parmar, has obtained a rule calling upon the respondent No. 2 to show cause who a writ of certiorary should not issue to remove into this court an order made by it allowing an appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 on the ground that it had violated a fundamental principle of natural justice. Respondent no. 1, Manilal Purushottam Solanki, is a Councilor of the Baroda Borough Municipality, (hereafter called the Municipality). Petitioner is a resident of Baroda and lames to be a voter in the ward from which respondent no. 1 has been elected as a councilor. Petitioner; case was that respondent no. 1 had incurred a disqualification to be a member of the Municipality under S. 12, sub-section (2), clause (b) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, (hereafter called the Act) and has thus become disabled from continuing as a councilor of the Municipality. Section 12, sub-section (2) clause (b) enacts inter alia, that no person who has directly...
State Vs. Dungaria Mahala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ815; (1960)GLR63
ORDERRaju, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Baroda, recomrnending that the committal of Dungaria Mahala, who is accused No. 3 in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1960, should be quashed, as he was a child under the Bombay Children Act.2. In his order the learned Sessions Judge observed that the offence had taken place in September 1959 and the accused in question was arrested on 27-9-59. Two Medical Officers examined him about 4 months later and the doctors were of the opinion that he was about 16 years of age. the learned Sessions Judge thought that in such cases it was for the prosecution to prove that the accused was not ai child. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the accusedl appears to have been less than 16 years of age on the day of the offence and therefore he must be held to be a child within the meaning of the Bombay Children Act, Under the Bombay Children Act, 'Child' is defined as a boy or a girl who has not attained the age of 16 years. When the accus...
Kumar Shri Bhojrajsinhji K. Zala Vs. the State of Bombay and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR173
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. The petitioner was given certain Giras lands in appenage including the ownership of an irrigation lake in the village of Dhedhuki by the former State of Sayla and he owns a half share in that lake and has been enjoying the recurring income arising from supply of water from that lake for irrigation of neighbouring lands. The other half of the property was held by Mulgirasdars of the village and the petitioner being the representative of the principal Bhagdar looked after the management of the lands and the irrigation lake and upon acquisition of the same adopted proceedings for compensation in that capacity. The Saurashtra Estates Acquisition Act 1952 became applicable to various properties including the irrigation lake owned by the petitioner and the Mulgirasdars. The Act as we had occasion to observe in another case was enacted to acquire certain estates of Girasdars and Barkhalidars of Saurashtra and to regulate certain matters affecting the acquisitions of such es...
State Vs. Sepoy Bhaimia Nathu and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR101
V.B. Raju, J. 1. This is an appeal by six person who are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1959 against their conviction by the Sessions Judge at Surendranagar under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Accused No. 1 was also convicted under Section 147 I.P. C. and accused Nos. 2 to 6 under Section 148 I.P.C. Accused No. 2 was also convicted under Section 324 I.P.C.[His Lordship after narrating and discussing the facts of the case further observed:]2. It is next contended that the six accused may not have shared the common object and that their object may have been similar and not common. Mr. Shah wants to make the same distinction between similar object and common object which Their Lordships of the Privy Council have made between similar intention and common intention. Section 34 I.P.C. deals with common intention and Section 141 and 149 I.P.C. deal with common object of an unlawful assembly. There are no doubt important points of distinction between Section 34 which...
Sepai Bhaimiya Nathu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1329
ORDERRaju, J.1. This is an appeal by six persons who are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1959 against their conviction by the Sessions Judge at Surendranagar Under Section 302 read with Section 149 I, P. C. Accused No. 1 was also convicted Under Section 147 I, P. C, and accused Nos. 2 to 6 Under Section 148 IPC Accused No. 2 was also convicted Under Section 324 IPC(2 9) (Omitted).10. It is next contended that even the six accused may not have shared the common object and that their object may have been similar and not common, Mr. Shah wants to make the same distinction between similar object and common object which their Lordships of the Privy Council nave made between similar intention and common intention. Section 34 IPC deals with common intention and Sections 141 and 149 I. P, C, deal with common object of an unlawful assembly. There are no doubt important points of distinction between Section 34 which deals with common intention and Section 149 which deals with cons...
State Vs. Raijibhai Chaturbhai Solanki
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1969Guj24; 1960CriLJ1447; (1960)GLR77
ORDER(1) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaira at Nadiad, recommending that the conviction of one Raijibhai in Summary Case No. 1164 of 1959 tried by the III Joint Civil Judge, J. D., and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad, under Section 69 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, and sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months should be set aside.(2) The prosecution case was that when the house of Raijibhai in the village of Dabhan was raided by the Head Constable of Nadiad Rural Police Station at about 7 A.M. on 9-7-1959 in the presence of two Panchas, 25 seers of Mhowra flowers in a gunny bag were found inside the house, and as he had no pass or permit for the possession of Mhowra flowers, he was prosecuted. At the trial, the evidence of the head constable was not supported by the two panchas both of whom were treated as hostile. According to the two Panchas, the Mhowra flowers were not found inside the house but outside the house of th...
State Vs. Mohan Hira
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Guj9; 1960CriLJ1330; (1960)GLR64
ORDER(1) This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, recommending that the order dated 18-7-59 passed by the First Class Magistrate, Gondal, in Criminal Case No. 190 of 1959 holding that he would not allow the prosecution to contradict the evidence given by its witness under the proviso to S. 162(1), Criminal Procedure Code 'without declaring him hostile and save in his cross-examination' be set aside, as it is wrong.(2) Section 137 of the Evidence Act provides that the examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called him examination-in-chief and the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called him cross-examination. Section 142 of the Evidence Act provides; 'leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court'. Section 143 of the Evidence Act provides that leading questions may be asked in cross-examination. Sect...
Rashiklal Bhaqwatlal Dave Vs. Laiks Umed Bhil
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR199
S.T. Desai, C.J.1. The short and interesting question that arises for our determination on this petition is whether after reformation in situ of land affected by dilution a person who is a protected tenant under the Tenancy Act of 1948 can assert a right in the land which has reformed.2. The facts which gave rise to this petition are not now in dispute and not disputable. Petitioner No. 4 is the owner of land admeasuring 23 acres and 5 gunthas out of which 2 acres and 22 gunthas were let out to respondent No. 1 who it is common ground became a protected tenant of that land. That land the subject matter of the tenancy was sub-merged in river Narmada in the year 1947-48 and re-appeared in August 1955. Respondent No. 1 thereupon filed a tenancy suit in the Court of the Mamlatdar which suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector who reversed the decision of the Mamlatdar and held that the tenancy suit was w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »