Rajasthan Court January 1949 Judgments
Varindmal Vs. Radha Krishna and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ634
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This criminal revision petition arises under the following circumstances:2. Yarindmal, the petitioner before me, filed S, complaint under Sections 312, 506, 323 and 161, Penal Code, against Radha Krishna, Jagdish and Gulzari. Accused l is a Sub-Inspector of Police, while the other two accused are constables. The complaint was to the effect that on 13th June 1948, the acoused arrested the petitioner, handcuffed him, took him to the Kotwali and illegally detained there for two hours. He was eventually released on bail after payment of Es. 60 as bribe to the police officers.3. The complaint was instituted in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate (Mr. Badlani) who referred the case to the District Magistrate in accordance with para. d88, Police Regulations, The case was transferred to the City Magistrate 'for trial' by the District Magistrate. Summonses were issued to the accused by the City Magistrate and they appeared in his Court on 2ith July 1948. Meanwhi...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Datta Vs. the District Magistrate and Suprintendent
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ227
ORDERRamabhadran, C.J.1. This is an application in the nature of habeas corpus Under Section 491, Criminal P.C.2. The petitioner, Hari Datta, was arrested under Section. 3, Punjab Public Safety Act, as applied to Ajmer. Merwara, under the orders of the Adl ditional District Magistrate. He was ordered to be detained in custody for a month. That period has expired and the Provincial Government acting Under Section 3 (4), has directed his detention in custody until further orders.3. Mr. B. D. Sharma for the petitioner urged that the arrest and detention of the petitioner were illegal as the Additional District Magistrate had no authority to act Under Section 3, Punjab Public Safety Act. It was argued that it was only the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate who could have acted Under Section 8. Reliance was placed on Prabhu Lal v. Emperor A.I.R. (31) 1944 Nag. 84 : 45 or. h. 3. 296 wherein it was held that an Additional Distriot Magistrate may have all the powers of the Distri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›