Himachal Pradesh Court May 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.
Maghu Vs. Kanwar Rattan Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1950HP42
Bannerji, J. 1 This is an application by the complainant Maghu directed against an order, dated 24th August 1949, of the District Magistrate, Mahasu, transferring the case against the opposite party, from the Court of Shri Hira Chand, Magistrate Third Class, to the Court of Shri Negi Roop Singh, Magistrate Second Class, for inquiry and trial. 2. The facts, in brief, are: the complainant, Maghu, made a complaint against the accused persons, Kanwar Rattan Singh and others, in the Court of Shri Gopi Chand, Magistrate Third Class, alleging that the accused persons had unlawfully trespassed on his land and committed mischief. The learned Magistrate took cognizance but he was succeeded by another Magistrate Third Class, Shri Hira Chand, who proceeded with the trial, and recorded the evidence of five witnesses. While he was recording the evidence of the Patwari, the accused persons moved the District Magistrate, Mahasu, for transferring the case from the Court of Shri Gopi Chand to some other...
Paras Ram Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951HP13
ORDERBannerji, J.1. This is an application for bail on behalf of Paras Ram, accused-petitioner, whose retrial was ordered pn 8th April 1950. He had made an application for bail to the Sessions Judge, Mahasu, who, in rejecting the application, observed as follows:'It Is true that the Court has ample powers to pass orders and grant bail, but I am reluctant to do so where the question entirely depends how far the eyewitnesses in the case should be relied upon. Had there been no eye-witnesses and the matter had been circumstantial altogether, the Court would have been in a position to size up the circumstantial evidence to an extent for purposes of bail. But as it is the testimony of eye-witnesses which has to be weighed, the Court cannot do so beforehand without prejudicing the issue. As the date of hearing in the case is being fixed from5th June onwards, the accused has not to remain in the look up. I am not satisfied that his remaining in the look up for this short period will prejudice...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›