Gujarat Court August 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.
Sindhi Fatandas Chimanlal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR110
V.B. Raju, J. 1. This is a revision application by nine persons, who were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Junagadh under Sees. 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. Application No. 1 Fatandas Chimanlal was convicted under Section 4 and the others under Section 5 of the Act. Holding that the conditions of Section 6 of the Act had been satisfied and relying on the evidence that applicant No. 1 was the Secretary of the Club known as 'Swastik Club'' in respect of which warrant had been issued, the learned Magistrate convicted that application No. 1 under Section 4 and he convicted the other under Section 5 of the Gambling Act, because they were found in the house when the raid was conducted. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, and hence this revision application.2. In regard to applicant No. 1, it has been contended that he was not present at the time of the raid, that there was no pr...
Punjalal Mohanlal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR100
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a revision application by the two applicants who were original accused Nos. 7 and 8 at the trial by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dakor in Criminal Case No. 1522 of 1959. They were both convicted for an offence under Section 411 I.P. Cade in respect of certain gold ornaments which had been stolen. The ornaments had not been recovered and it was the prosecution case that upon the information given by accused No. 5 the shop of accused Nos. 7 and 8 was discovered and it was ultimately found that accused Nos. 7 & 8 had sold certain gold on 7-9-59 the offence for theft having been committed on 5-9-1959. The learned Magistrate convicted the applicants who were original accused Nos. 7 and 8 under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and their convictions were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal.2. In revision three points have been urged: (1) that the provisions of Section 27 Evidence Act had been misapplied in the present case; (2) that the learned Sessio...
State Vs. Harijan Kachara Sada
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: (1960)1GLR103
V.B. Raju, J.1. This Judgment will dispose of Confirmation Case No. 1 of 1960 and Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 1960 arising out of the judgment of the learned Judge at Mehsana convicting the applicant Kachara Sada Dhed-Harijan under Section 302 I.P. Code for having murdered Bai Mangu aged 17 years wife of one Ishwar and under Section 394 and 397 I.P. Code for having robbed her of her ornaments and for having used a deadly weapon while committing robbery.2. It is contended that Keshavlal is the only eye-witness who according to the prosecution had seen the appellant at the scene of offence and that when the prosecution case depends on the evidence of only one eye-witness his evidence requires to be corroborated and for this purpose the Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a ruling reported in : 1956CriLJ777 .3. This case is distinguishable from the present case because in that case a person who had seen the perpetrator of a crime had not given information of it to any one else and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›