Rajasthan Court February 1950 Judgments
Balu Vs. Rex
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1301
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused-applicant stands convicted under Section 161, Penal Code, read with 116, Penal Code and sentence to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The case of the prosecution is that he attempted to offer a bribe to a police-officer to show some favour to certain persons required in connection with come offence. The prosecution case against him rests on the evidence of three police-officers and two search- witnesses. The sum total of the evidence of the three police-witnesses is to the effect that ac caused-applicant l wanted to have some talk in private with the S.O. The S.O. took him to another portion of the building, and came back with him after some time. The S.O. had already sent for two search-witnesses. The accused-applicant then offered him is currency-notes of bb. 6 each, and said that he would pay him more money later on. The latter portion of the story is corroborated by the two search-witnesses. The story as narrated by...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal S/O Balu Ram Vs. Meghraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1248
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused applicant has come up in revision from the order of the trial Court framing a charge against him Under Section 406, Penal Code. His contention is that the offence, if at all, is made out as against the other accused and not as against him. It is not for the Court at this stage to give a finding one way or the other in the case for that might seriously prejudice the case as against the other caucused. The accused-applicant, if aggrieved, from the judgment of the trial Court could certainly go up before the Court of Session,3. The application in revision accordingly is dismissed without going into the merits of the case....
Tag this Judgment!Bijai Raj and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1063
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties. This is an application, in revision on behalf of the accused applicants from the order of the trial Court allowing the prosecution to file a supplementary Hat of witnesses. Section 253 (2), Criminal P.C. is quite dear in the matter and lays down that 'the Magistrate shall ascertain, from the complainant or otherwise, the names of any persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution, and shall summon to give evidence before himself such of them as lie thinks necessary.'2. Hansraj v. Emperor A. I. R. (27) 1940 Nag 390 : 42 Cr.L.J. 208, also lays down that 'the power given to the Magistrate Under Section 262 (2) may be exercised from time to time as the occasion requires1. No doubt, Sitab Singh v. Dulganjan Singh (1913) 14 Cr. L. J. 682 : A.I.R. (1) 1914 ALL. 526 and Qovinda Sahai v. Emperor A. I. R. (1) 1914 ALL. 430 (2) : 15 Cr.L.J. 363 as cited on behalf of the accused applicants, ...
Tag this Judgment!Amba Lal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1108
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused applicant stands convicted Under Section 19(f), Arms Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Es. 800. The case of the prosecution was that he had 'in his possession thirty 12-bore and five .38-bore unlicensed cartridges. The main contention of the accused-applicant before the Court is that the prosecution have altogether failed to show that the alleged recovery had .been made from his possession. The contention, in my opinion, is not altogether without weight and is supported to a considerable extent by the very evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution before the trial Court.3. The house from wherein the recovery is said to have been made, is admittedly occupied by the accused-applicant and his two brothers. They live altogether in separate apartments, and are also separate in mess and business. The cartridges in question are said to have been recovered from a cup. board in a small room from wherein the gun-licenses of the thre...
Tag this Judgment!S. Shamshad Ali Vs. S. Tassawar HussaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Raj35; 1950CriLJ1218
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the order of 'discharge' passed by the trial Cour~ be set aside and that the record be remitted to the trial Court for proceeding with the case afresh and in accordance with law.3. The facts of the case have been summa. rized correctly in its order by the Court below, and need not be reiterated. The order of 'discharge', in fact, amounts to an order of 'acquittal' since a charge stood framed against the accused (opposite. party). It is now 80 well. settled law that the High Courb will not ordinarily interfere with an order of acquittal in revision unless interference is urgently called for in the interests of public justiae. Even in such cases the High Court should be slow to interfere because it is always open to an aggrieved complainant to move the authorities for an appeal against an order of acquittal by the Government. The complaint in the present case is in re...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Committee Vs. Daryanmal Chanchaldass
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Raj32; 1950CriLJ1130
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court be set aside and that the opposite party be visited with penalty provided by the bye-laws made by the Ajmer Municipal Committee Under Section 161 (9) read with Section 345 (e)(i) of Regulations (6) of 1925 published under Notification No, 410/33, dated 22nd February 1948, for each of the three offences committed on 18th January 1949, 23rd December 1948 and 38th January 1949.3. Section439 (4), Criminal P.C. of course, lays down that:Nothing in this station...shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.It is now a well, settled law that the High Court will also not ordinarily interfere with an order of acquittal in revision unless interference is urgently called for in the interests of public justice. Even in such cases the High Court should be slow to interfere bec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›