Rajasthan Court July 1949 Judgments
Radha Ballabh Vs. Rex
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Raj21; 1950CriLJ905
Atma Charan, J.C.1. This is an appeal by Radha Ballabh from the order of Raizada Gurcharan Dass, Sessions Judge, Ajmer Merwara, dated 10th January 1949, convicting him Under Section 324, Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. There is also an appeal on behalf of the Crown that Radha Ballabh be convicted Under Section 302, Penal Code, or in the alternative under section 307 and 326, Penal Code and an appropriate sentence be passed on him. This is Criminal Appeal No. VII [7] of 1949.2. Beni Prasad is the deceased, and was the son-in law of Pearey Lai of Ajmer, Jogeshwar is the brother of the deceased Radha Ballabh is the accused, and is married to the niece of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that on 7th February 1913 at about 7-80 p. M. Beni Prasad, Jogeshwar and Pearey Lai were sitting. together on the third storey of the house of Pearey Lai at Ajmer, Radha Ballabh came, and also at down there. He asked Jogeshwar and Pearey Lai to leave...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Nath and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ883
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This iS an application in revision by Jagan Nath and five others from the order of Mr. T. Ramabhadran, I.C. S., Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Merwara, Ajraer, partly setting aside the order of the trial Court discharging them in respect of offences punishable Under Section 82, Registration Act and under aSection 177, 183 and 420, Penal Code, and directing them to be tried afresh in accordance with law in respect of an offence punishable under Section 177, Penal Code. The facts that have given rise to the application for revision are briefly as below: The applicants executed a sale-deed in respect of a certain piece of land, and got it registered on 22nd September 1917. The land was described therein as having a 'pacca boundary wall, trees and a garden being inside 'abadi.' The contention of the prosecution before the Court below was that the property sold, in fact, was 'land' within the meaning of Section 3 of Regulation lit [3] of 1914 and that, as such, the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Janwahar and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ890
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The counsel for the applicants has pressed the application in revision mainly on two grounds-firstly ,that there was no proper sanction to prosecute the applicants Under Section 10, Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1946, and secondly, that there was no application on behalf of the prosecution to try the case summarily.3. The complaint before the tri3l Court was lodged on 12-6-1948, and the processes against the applicants wore issued the game day for their presence on 8-7-1948. The sanction of the Chief Commissioner appears to have been filed before the trial Court on 8-7-1948. The sanction or the other papers on the record of the trial Court in no way go to show as to what facts had been placed for obtaining sanction before the Chief Commissioner, The sanction, in the circumstances, could be held to be no valid sanction within the meaning of Section 10, Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1916. The counsel for the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Lal and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ935
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. The only question that arises for consideration in revision before the court is whe. ther the proceedings against the applicant in respect of an offence punishable under Section 188, Penal Code should be allowed to continue on the complaint as filed. The District Magistrate passed an order Under Section 114, Criminal P.C. The police submitted a report against the applicant and some others that they had contravened the order, and asked that action be taken against them in respect of the offence punishable Under Section 188, Penal code. The District Magistrate on receiving the report just countersigned it. The report in due coarse was presented before trial Court by the Police. The contention on behalf of the applicant before the Court is that there was no complaint of the District Magistrate within the meaning of 8, 195, Criminal P.C. and that, as such, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the case.2. The complaint is before the Court, and in no wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›