Himachal Pradesh Court December 1953 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.
Fatta and ors. Vs. Dillu
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954HP44
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. Dillu respondent died on 31st Jeth, corresponding to 13-8-1953. An application to bring his legal representatives on the record was filed on 16-9-1953, i.e., more than 90 days after his death. It was, therefore, urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the revision petition has abated. On behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand, it was argued that in revision, rules regarding abatement do not apply nor is limitation applicable. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also been referred to the case law on the point.2. Learned counsel for the respondent cited--'Basawanjanayulu v. Ramalingayya', AIR 1938 Mad 115 (A), where a single Judge of that High Court held that:'Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 are applicable to proceedings under Section 115 and an order passed by the High Court on a petition under Section 115 in ignorance of the fact of death of the petitioner more than ninety days previously is one made without jurisdiction and is a nullit...
Sobha Singh Vs. Jai Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954HP46
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Mandi, whereby he refused to interfere with the trial under Section 409, I. P .C., pending against the petitioner in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Mandi. In this revision petition, I am requested to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge and quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Magistrate's Court. During the hearing of this revision petition, an application, purporting to be under Sections 561A, 439 and 344, Cr. P. Code, was moved by the petitioner. Therein, I am requested, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court pending the decision of civil proceedings between the parties.I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Government Advocate. Proceedings against the petitioner were started on a complaint filed by one Jai Singh, who alleged that the petitioner, who was his partner in a wea...
Rattan Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1954HP50
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. In this revision petition, which was admitted by my learned predecessor, I am constrained to remark that the trial Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 263, Cr. P. C.The case against the petitioners was one under Section 447, I. P. C. It was tried summarily and a non-appealable sentence of fine had been passed. Under Section 263, Cr. P. C., the Magistrate is not required to record the evidence of the witnesses, or frame a formal charge, but he is required to enter in the prescribed form, particulars regarding the name of the complainant, the name of the accused, date of the offence, date of report or complaint as well as the plea of the accused and his examination, the finding, and, in the case of conviction, abrief statement of the reasons therefor. I find that in this particular case, the plea of the accused has not been recorded.Similarly, as regards the finding and a briefstatement of the reasons therefor, the Magistratehas w...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›