Himachal Pradesh Court May 1959 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.
Bhupendra Nath Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1959HP29,1959CriLJ1165
ORDERT. Ramabhadran, J.C.1. The main point for determination in this reference is, whether an order directing an accused person to furnish his finger impressions for the purpose of comparison with certain disputed similar impressions under Section 73 of the Evidence Act or otherwise, would be contrary to the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. For reasons to be stated shortly, I have come to the conclusion that the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution would not be infringed in such a case.2. Under Article 20(3), no person, accused of any offence, shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. We have, therefore, to see whether by calling upon the petitioner Bhupendra Nath, to give his finger impressions, the trial Magistrate has compelled him i.e., the petitioner to be a witness against himself.3. When arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard at Bilaspur on the 24th ultimo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended, vehemently, that th...
Subedar Baman Ram Vs. Mt. Masti and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1959
Reported in: AIR1960HP14
ORDER11. I accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Court below, directing the recovery of a sum of Rs. 946.87 nP from the appellant by way of court-fees under Order 33, Rule 10. In place of that order, I substitute another order under Order 33, Rule 11, directing the plaintiff-respondent, Mt. Masti, to pay the court-fees, which would have been paid by her, if she had not been permitted to sue as a pauper. The appellant will get his costs of the appeal from the respondents....
Mt. Padma Vs. Parma Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1959
Reported in: AIR1959HP37
ORDERMisc. First Appeal No. 22 of 59.14. I allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the trial Court and grant Mt. Padma a decree for judicial separations against Parma Ram under Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She will get her costs, here and in the Court below, from the respondent Misc. First Appeal No. 23 of 59.15. I allow this appeal and set aside the decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted by the trial Court, i. e., Parma Ram's petition under Section 9(1) of the Act is dismissed. The appellant will get her costs here, and in the Court below, from the respondent.16. This judgment will be read in both theappeals, i. e., Misc. First Appeals 22 and 23 of 1959.Appeals allowed....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›