Himachal Pradesh Court November 1950 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.
Baijnath Vs. Ram Nath and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951HP32
Chowdhry, C.J. 1. These are two second appeals by the defendant Baijnath arising out of two separate suits id both of which the plaintiffs were the same, Tholia and his son Ram Nath. Tholia having died, his son Brahm Nath has been brought on record as his legal representative in the second appeal. The brothers Ram Nath and Brahm Nath are thus the plaintiffs-respondents in both these appeals.2. Both the suits were dismissed by the trial Court but decreed on appeal by the District Judge of Chamba. The present second appeals were thereupon filed by Baijnath in the Court of the Chief Judge of Chamba. Under Notfn. no. 3. 79-15/48, dated 14-1-1949, read with Section 36, Chamba State Courts Act, the Chief Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh referred to the Judicial Committee for its opinion cases that were pending in the Chief Court of Chamba. That is how these second appeals are now before me as Judicial Committee.3. The two suits were for recovery of value of offerings made on the occasion of ...
Kanhya and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951HP35
ORDERChowdhry, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Chamba recommending that the conviction of Kanhya for manufacturing and for being found in possession of arms without licence, and of Sahnu for being found in possession of arms without licence, and the sentences of fine imposed upon them by a learned first class Magistrate of Chamba be set aside.2. It appears that on a search of the house of Kanhya, who is a black-smith by profession, two country-made guns and a country-made pistol were recovered. One of the guns belonged to Sahnu, who held a licence for the same but it had expired before the date of its recovery from Kanhya's possession. The other gun belonged to one Phulgari, who held a valid licence for the same.3. Kanhya's case may be taken up first. He stated that he made the pistol in the time of Raja Ram Singh. The prosecution led no evidence as to when it was manufactured. Section 19 (a) of the Arms Act penalises manufacture of arms, but not r...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›