Himachal Pradesh Court June 1961 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.
Kapuru and anr. Vs. Gulaba
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962HP5
ORDERC.B. Capoor, J.1. This referencee has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur Sessions Division, recommending that the order of the learned Magistrate first class, Arki, in a case under section 145, Cri. P. C., be set aside and the case remanded to him for passing fresh orders after making proper inquiry as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 145, Cri. P. C. 2. It appears that the parties to the proceeding did not file any affidavit and instead examined Witnesses in support of their respective cases. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the aforesaid procedure was in contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 145, Cri. P. C., and the order of the learned Magistrate was liable to be quashed on that score. In arriving at that conclusion he relied upon the cases reported in AIR 1959 (1955 is obviously a mistake) All 763, Bhagwat Singh v. State and S. Jodh Singh v. Bhagambar Dass, 63 Pun LR 63: (AIR 1961 Punj 187). 3. Ira the AIR...
Siri Ram and anr. Vs. Niranjan Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962HP52
C.B. Capoor, J.C. 1. This petition and C. W. P. No. 26/1960 purport to be under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as a common question of law arises in both of them I propose to dispose of them by this order.2. The petitioners and respondent No. 1 to both the petitions (hereinafter to be styled as respondent No. 1) were candidates for election to the Municipal Committee, Nahan. They filed their nomination papers. An objection was raised at the instance of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 was not qualified to seek election, inasmuch as he was a whole time employee in the Nahan Foundry which was entirely owned by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry Government of India and was under the management control and supervision of the Central Government and respondent No. 1 drew his emoluments from and under the Government. Stated in other words the contention is that respondent No. 1 was disqualified from seeking election On account of his holding an office of profit under the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›