Himachal Pradesh Court June 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.
Nathu Ram and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951HP1
Bannerjee, J.1. The appellant, Nathu, has been convicted of murder by the learned Sessions Judge and baa been sentenced to death. He has also been found guilty under Section 450, Penal Code, and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. He has, further, been found guilty under Section 394, Penal Code, and sentenced to the sama terms of rigorous imprisonment. The sentences, under Sections 450 and 394, Penal Code, have been directed to run concurrently.2. The appellant No. 2, Padam Pal, has been convicted under Section 450, Penal Oode, and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. He bas also been found guilty under Section 397, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.3. The appellant No. 3, Ganga Ram, has been found guilty under Section 450, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 394, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to th...
Lachhman Singh and Kartar Singh Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ108
Khosla, J.1.This order deals with criminal Revisions NOB. 290, 292, 293, 294 and 296 of 1949. The cases have been referred to a Division Bench by Kapur J. as he experienced some difficulty in deciding the nature of possession involved in these oases. The petitions have arisen out of five different exercise cases in which the allegation of the prosecution was that the accused person (in each case) was in possession of a quantity of lahan. In all' oases the lahan had been buried by the accused person. In two oases the lahan was buried out in the fields and in three cases the lahan was buried in a kotha. The point raised before Kapur J. was whether in any of these oases the accused person could be said to have been in possession of lahan which is a contraband article the possession of which is forbidden by law. Kapur J. referred to the definition of possession as given in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and then concluded as follows:I myself have acme doubt as to whether even where a man bur...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›