Gujarat Court August 1961 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.
Lavjibhai Naranbhai Vs. Ramjibhai Hetabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR56
V.B. Raju, J.1. This Special Civil Application relates to Village Panchayats Elections. The main contention in the application is that the Collector of Mehsana having formed the wards in the village Tavadiya under Section 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 (which for convenience will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) had no authority to reform the wards for the purposes of the same election. It is contended in the petition that the reformation for the purposes of the election of the wards by the Collector who had previously formed the wards in a different manner is illegal and void. It is also contended that this formation is contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution as the reformation is based on communal considerations.Most of the facts are admitted and are as follows:2. The Government issued a Notification declaring Tavadiya as a village under Section 4 of the Act. The Government also issued a Notification ordering that election to the Village Panchayat of Tavadiya s...
Sainik Kanaiyalal Kalumal Vs. the State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-02-1961
Reported in: (1962)3GLR739
R.B. Mehta, J.His Lordship after stating the facts discussed the evidence and proceeded:1. This discussion now leads us to the question as to whether the confession made by the accused in the presence of Sardulsing Rohitlal and Vaijnathsinh is admissible in evidence. It is contended by Mr. Bhatt that a confession made in the presence of Sardulsing is a confession made to a police officer and that therefore under the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act it is not admissible in evidence. Mr. Bhatt says that Sardulsing is a superior officer and a member of the Railway Protection Force which is constituted under the Railway Protection Force Act 1957 that the duties of such officer are akin to the duties of a police officer and that therefore Sardulsing should be deemed to be a police officer as contemplated under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and that therefore the confession made to him cannot be admissible in evidence. For the purpose of his argument in regard to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›