Himachal Pradesh Court June 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.
Findal Vs. State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954HP11
Chowdhry, J.C.1. This is an appeal by Findal, aged 36, against his conviction under Section 302 Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge of Manasu for the murder of one Sundar Singh by poisoning him with aconite and the sentence of transportation for life imposed upon him. He acquitted Mst. Nilam Dasi, who was tried along with the appellant for abetment of the offence, because in his opinion the prosecution had failed to prove conclusively that she had supplied aconite to the appellant.2. The facts of the prosecution case are briefly as follows: The deceased and his elder brother Mohar Singh lived together in village Gharshial, Tehsil Rohru. The appellant also belongs to the same village. Mohar Singh first married Mst. Karam Patti (P. W. 4), and she became the common wife of both the brothers. A few years later Mohar Singh married the aforesaid Mst. Nilam Dasi of village Manghi-yara, and she also subsequently became the common wife of the two brothers. Findal appellant used to work on ...
Balak Ram and ors. Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954HP6
Chowdhry, J.C. 1. This is a second appeal by three of the nine plaintiffs, the rest being im-pleaded as 'pro forma' respondents. The suit related to land, 52 bighas and 5 biswas in area, of which the last male holders were Sitlu and Haria, and the last female holder Mst. Sakki, the widow of the former. On her death, it was taken by escheat by the former Jubbal State. The plaintiff's case was that out of the said land 47 bighas were granted, after the escheat, to defendants 2 to 7 by the Raja. The trial Court found that grants were made only to defendants 2 (Sita Ram), 4 (Kan-thu) and 6 (Mandas, who died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court and was substituted by Sher Singh). The correctness of this finding was conceded in this Court, sothat the grants in favour of only these 3 defendants are now in question. The grants made to these defendants were separate and of spe-cine areas. Claiming to be reversioners to the estates of the last male holders on the death of Mst. Sakk...
Sadh Ram Vs. State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1953HP121
ORDERChowdhry, J.C. 1. This is a reference under Section 438, Cr. P. C., by the learned Sessions Judge of Mahasu and Sirmur, recommending that the conviction of Sadh Ram for an offence under Section 22, Arms Act, 1878, be set aside and he be acquitted.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Sadh Ram holds a license for a gun. The gun was at the time out of repair, and he was taking it for repairs to a gun-maker at Kot Khai. On his way to Kot Khai he came to know at village Dim that the gun-maker was not at Kot Khai. Sadh Ram thereupon deposited the gun with one Jiwan Ram, promising to return the following day and take it back from him. He however told Jiwan Ram that in case he was unable to return the following day, the gun should be taken by him (Jiwan Ram) to the Police Station along with the license, which was also handed over to Jiwan Ram by Sadh Ram, for inspection. The following day, before Jiwan Ram could take the gun to the Police Station for its inspection, it was recover...
Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Jit Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954HP20
Chowdhry J.C.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit to pre-empt the sale of land situate in the former State of Baghal. In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration as reversioners that the sale will not be binding on them after the death of the vendor. Their suit was dismissed by the trial Court and their appeal by the District Judge.2. The plaintiffs did not press their claim on the basis of their reversionary right in the lower appellate Court. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants however pressed it in this Court. He contended that if due to an erroneous conception of the law the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants in the lower appellate Court failed to press the plea there, that is no bar in law to that point being pressed in second appeal before this Court. This position was not controverted by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents. But the alternative case of the plaintiffs on the basis of their reversiona...
Dulchi Vs. Dhani Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954HP19
ORDERChowdhry J.C.1. This is a petition under Section 526, Cr. P. C. by one Dulchi for transfer of a case pending against him for an offence punishable under Section 498, I. P. C., in the Court of the second class Magistrate at Theog.2. It was put to the petitioner to show cause why this petition be not dismissed for his failure to have applied first to the District Magistrate under Section 528 of the Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited -- 'Dowlatram Bulchand v. Thakursee Moti', AIR 1953 Kutch 14 (A). There is no doubt that there is no bar to a petitioner coining direct to a High Court under Section 526 of the Code withJiout first approaching the District Magistrate under Section 528, but in the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself there is a reference to the practice which has grown up in various High Courts according to which a direct approach under Section 526 is discountenanced, That practice is based on sound principles. It is not merel...
Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954HP21
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. The petitioner Rameshwar Dayal was convicted by a first class Magistrate under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravention of Clause 24 (i), Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, which prohibits sale of cloth at a price higher than the maximum price fixed by fee Textile Commissioner under Clause 22, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 300/-, or two months' simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal. He has now come up in revision to this Court. The charge, which according to the Magistrate the petitioner had failed to disprove, but which the Sessions Judge found proved against him, was that he sold a measure of cloth to one Tika Ram at Rs. 2/-per yard instead of the controlled rate of Rs. 1-3-6 per yard.2. The first contention of the learned coun-sel for the petitioner was that the notification of the Textile Commissioner fixing the maximum pr...
Jai Lal Vs. Padam Singh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954HP23
Chowdhry J.C.1. This is a reference made by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, of Mahasu in a proceeding in execution of a decree under Section 113 and Order 46, Rule 1, C. P. C. The decree under execution not being a non-appealable one, and moreover, the question involved being as to the validity of a Regulation, the former and not the latter was the correct provision of the Code for making the reference.2. In execution of a money decree the judgment-debtor pleaded the bar of Section 15, Bushahar Alienation of Land Regulation of 1986 B. against the attachment of his land. This section provides that no land belonging to a member of an agricultural tribe shall be sold in execution of any decree or order of any Civil or Revenue Court, whether made before or after the commencement of the Regulation. Section 2(g) of the Regulation defines the term 'members of agricultural tribe' as Bushaharis following the profession of agriculture and belonging to certain castes enumerated therein. One...
Shiv Dutt and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1953HP95
Chowdhry, J.C.1. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce the fundamental right to hold property guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f), due to an alleged contravention of the provisions of Article 31, directed against the State of Himachal Pradesh, one by Balaram in respect of 3 bighas and 13 bis-was, and the other by Shiv Dutt in respect of 1 bigha 1 biswa and 15 biswansis, the two areas forming one compact piece of land in the town of Solan,2. The allegations in the two petitions, except for a slight variation (to be referred to presently), are identical. The petitioners claim, along with their co-owners, to be the proprietors of the respective areas. The co-owners, Krishna Dutt minor in the case of Balaram andMt. Gangi in that of Shiv Dutt, have been, impleaded as pro forma respondents.3. The petitioners' case is that the land was originally taken on rent by the ruler of Baghat for holding Solan fair, that no rent had been paid since 1938, that in that year ...
Bindraban Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1953HP103
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Bindraban directed, against the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Director of Industries Himachal Pradesh as liquidator of the Solan Electric Supply Company Ltd. and the Limited Company itself which is under liquidation. The petitioner was employed in 1940 as an accountant in the Company, and it appears that he was also confirmed on that post. After the Company had gone into voluntary liquidation the liquidator by his letter dated 22-10-1951 framed three charges against the petitioner and asked him to show cause within seven days why his services be not terminated, It was added in the letter that it will be opento the petitioner to submit his explanation and to adduce such evidence in his defence as he may desire. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26-10-1951, but the liquidator terminated his services by his communication dated 10-12-1951 on the ground that the explanation submitted by the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›