Himachal Pradesh Court January 1954 Judgments

Ramanand Vs. Krishan Chand

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP61

ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 323, I. P. C., against the respondent in the Court of the Magistrate second class, Kasumpti. The Magistrate acquitted the accused. The petitioner then went up in revision to the Sessions Judge of Mahasu, who rejected this petition. He now comes up in revision to this Court and the prayer made therein is that the orders of the two Courts below be set aside.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The High Court will not ordinarily interfere in revision against an order of acquittal, aswas pointed out in an earlier ruling of this Courtreported in--'Dhania v. Parasram', AIR 1950Him P 44 (A). This Court will interfere in a revision against acquittal only when there has been,an error of law, or where the lower Court did notexercise a proper judicial mind and has come toa decision, without a proper appreciation of theevidence resulting in a failure of justice. In thepresent case, the 'complainant's case was th...

Tota Ram and ors. Vs. State

Court: Himachal Pradesh

1. The petitioners were convicted by the Magistrate first class Jubbal of offences under Sections 426 and 447, I. P. C., and non-appealable sentences of fine were inflicted. They went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of Mahasu, who upheld their conviction. They then came up in revision to this Court. My learned predecessor dismissed their revision petition on 26-6-1953. After that, a petition purporting to be under Sections 369, 439 and 561-A, Criminal P. C., was put in by the petitioners and the prayer made therein, was that the order dated 26-6-1953 made by this Court be reconsidered and set aside and the petitioners acquitted. This petition was admitted by my learned predecessor, although he refused to stay realization of fine.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. For reasons given below, I am of the opinion that this petition cannot succeed. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited the following rulings in support of the petition. 'Chandrika v. Rex', AIR 1...

Sobha Singh Vs. Jai Singh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1954HP45

Ramabhadran, J.C.1. This is a petition under Article 134 of the Constitution, wherein I am requested to certify that this case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be stated briefly. The petitioner is being tried of an offence under certain Section 409, I. P. C., in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Mandi. The petitioner objected to being tried and moved the Magistrate to drop the proceedings. The Magistrate, however, directed the trial to proceed. The petitioner then went up in revision to the learned Sessioss Judge of Mandi, but was unsuccessful there too. He then came up in revision to this Court and prayed either that the criminal proceedings pending in the Magistrate's Court be quashed, or, in the alternative, the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court be stayed pending decision of civil proceedings between the parties. Both the prayers were refused for reasons stated in this Court's order dated 18-12-1953. I further di...