Rajasthan Court April 1950 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.
Premraj Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Raj55
ORDERTrilochan Dutt, J.1. The case, out of which this revision petition has arisen, is pending in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Banner. A criminal case under Sections 379. 414 and 409 was registered on 20th of October 1948 in the Court of the said Magistrate against the two petitioners, Premraj, Ramanlal and one Bhagirath, on a Police report.A list of 36 prosecution witnesses was attached to this Police report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Out of these 36 witnesses, the prosecution was able to examine 27 upto 4th of August 1949, i.e., within 10 months . On 8th of June 1949, the Prosecuting Inspector presented an application before the Magistrate requesting him to issue summons in the name of 14 witnesses. All these witnesses were included in the list of 36 witnesses mentioned above. This application of the Prosecuting Inspector for Issuing summons in the name of 14 witnesses was rejected by the Magistrate on 29th of June 1949 but time was granted to th...
Tikam Chand Vs. Man Mal, Food Inspector, Municipal Committee
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1296
ORDEROak, J.C.1. This is a referenoe by the learned Seasiona Judge, Ajmer recommending that, the conviction and sentence of Tikam Chand Under Section 13, Punjab Pure Food Act (vm [8] of 1929) may be set aside, According to the prosecution, Man Mai, Food Inspector, took samples of milk from Tikam chand accused. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst sent a report that, the milk was adulterated. The accused was therefore prosecuted for exposing adulterated milk for sale. The accused pleaded not guilty, and stated that, the milk in question did not belong to him but to another man called Mulla. The learned Magistrate did not accept this defence, and held that, it was the accused who was the owner of the milk. The accused was therefore convicted under Section 13, Punjab Pure Food Act for exposing adulterated milk for sale. The accused was fined Hs. 60, and was ordered to piy as. 6 as cost of analysis. The accused filed a revision petition befo...
Hazarimal Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1601
ORDEROak, J.C.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Merwara, recommending that an order Under Section 522, Criminal P.C. be passed in favour of a complainant. Hazari Mai filed a complaint against four persons under Section 447, Penal Code, with the following allegations. On 30th December 1948 the four accused came armed with deadly weapons, threatened to beat Hazari Mai complainant, and took foroible pos-session of a plot of land belonging to him by demolishing his Bhatti and Math, which stood thereon. The complaint ended in a conviction. Under Section 447, Penal Code. The case wag decided on SOtb May 1949, On 22nd June 1949, the complainant filed an application to the trial Court Under Section 522, Criminal P.C., praying that possession of the property be restored to him. Thif application Under Section 523, Criminal P.C. was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on Acth August 1949 on the ground that he could not deliver possession more than one month after the dat...
Balu Ram Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1512
ORDEROak, J.C.1. This revision petition raises a question whether the prosecution should be allowed 4o examine a certain witness at a certain stage of the trial. Two persons are being prosecuted Under Section 7, Essential Supplies Aot. The prosecution submitted a list of prosecution witnesses on 21st August 1919. Five witnesses named in the list were examined by the prosecution; and prosecution evidence was closed on 23rd September 1049. The accused were examined on 31st October 1949, and a charge was framed by the Court.2. On 21st October 1949, an application was made by the prosecution to the effeot that, it was proposed to examine one more witness Sri Kishen On 80th December 1949, the Court heard arguments for the parties as to whether the prosecution should be allowed to examine Sri Kiahtn as an additional witness. The Court decided that Sri Kisben should be examined before the Court, Against this order dated 30th December 1949, a revision application was made by the accused person...
Ghisa Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1289
ORDEROak, J.C.1. This is a revision by Ghisa, who has been convicted Under Section 304, Penal Code for causing death as a result of rash and negligent driving. According to the prosecution the applicant was driving a lorry from Nasirabad towards Ajmer on the evening of 15th April 1918. One girl Ishwari aged about 10 yeara was walking on the right side of the road. The lorry passed over the girl, who was consequently severely injured. She died at the hospital during the night. The accused was therefore prose, outed for rash and negligent driving, He pleaded not guilty. He was however convicted by the trial Court, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment foe six months- In appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction Under Section 304A, Penal Code, but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two months. Now Ghisa accused has come to this Court in revision.2. The main witnesses examined for the prosecution were Sobhraj (P.W. 2), Murari Lai (P.W. 1) and Hukumat Rai (...
Manakchand Vs. Bansidhar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Raj29
Datta, J. 1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 6th September 1949. The short question in this revision is that whether the Notification No. 19 dated 17th March 1917 making an amendment in the Prevention of Eviction Order 1942, Bikaner State, with regard to the eviction from 'houses' applies to 'shops' also or not. 2. The applicant Manakchand applied in the Court of the Tehsildar, Churu under Notification No. 19 dated 17th March 1947 to evict Bansidhar and Mahadeo from the shop which belonged to the applicant and which was rented by him to Bansidhar and Mahadeo. The Tehsildar dismissed this application on the ground that the Notification No. 19 does not apply to shops and this order of Tehsildar was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Churu. Notification No. 19 dated nth of March 1947 runs as follows: 'In modification of this office Notification No. 80, dated 17th October 1946, the Government are pleased to order that the following amendments shall...
Harji Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1187
Oak, J.C.1. This is an appeal by Harji against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Merwara, directing that a complaint be filed against the appellant Under Section 193, Penal Code. Two persons, Mohanlal and Sohanlal were tried for murder in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1948. Harji appeared as a witness for the prosecution in the murder trial. When the trial was over, the Public Prosecutor moved the trial Court for filing a complaint against Harji wit-ness for perjury. An enquiry was made under Section 476, Criminal P.C. Harji admitted having made the various statements before different Courts. He pleaded that, all the statements made by him were true. The learned Sessions Judge considered that, the statement made by Harji before the Court of Session was false. The learned Sessions Judge therefore passed an order directing that a complaint be filed against Harji Under Section 199, Penal Code. Hence this appeal by Harji.2. Harji made three statements from time to time in connection...
Mula Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Raj42; 1950CriLJ1284
Oak, J.C.1. This is a jail appeal by Mula, who has been convicted by the learned Additional District Magistrate of Ajmer Under Section 210/213, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. According to the prosecution, Mula appellant met one Ramkaran Singh at Beawar. The accused Bhowed Bamkaran Singh Bs. 20 in coins, and offered to exchange them. Bamkaran Singh took those coins from the accused, and gave him other coins in exchange. When Bamkaran Singh proceeded to make some purchases it was found that, the coins obtained from the accused were counterfeit. When Bamkiahen Singh tried to question the accused on the point, the accused tried to run away. He was pursued, was arrested, and made over to the Police. 'When his person was searched, a few more counterfeit coins were recovered from his possession. The accused was prosecuted under 3. 240, Penal Code for delivering counterfeit coins. The accused pleaded not guilty. He denied having given the rupees in...
Ganpat Singh Vs. Zora
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1606
ORDEROak, J.C.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Ajmer recommending that, a proceeding under Section 447/109, Penal Code which is pending against Thakur Ganpat Singh be quashed. Zora filed a complaint against Thakur Ganpat Singh, Lai Singh and certain other accused with the following allegations. The complainant was in possession of a plot of land. Lai Singh accused under the instigation of Thakur Ganpat Singh accused made a forced entry upon the plot of land. The TahaiHar-Magistrate summoned Thakur Ganpat Singh and other accused. A request was made to the trial court for exempting Thakur Ganpafc Singh accused from personal attendance. This prayer was not accepted. The trial Court directed that, summons be issued against Thakur Ganpat Singh accused for personal appearance in Court. Against this order passed by the Tahsildar-Magistrate a revision was filed before the Extra Assistant Commissioner. That revision was dismissed. A fresh revision was filed before th...
Pokar and ors. Vs. Lakshman and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj120
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a revn against the order of the learned Munsif No. 1 of Sojat. The facts of the case, as can be gathered from the plaint, are as under:2. There is a well known as Kosita at Sojat which was in the Bapi of Naraindas, Sampatraj & others. It was cultivated by Pokar son of Kesa, Jaga, Lachha & Pokar son of Magna. The Bapidars decided to sell their interest & on 20-1-1949, the cultivators are alleged to have agreed to give up possession on 1-5-1949, to anybody who may purchase the rights of the Bapidars. The Bapidars sold their interest for Rs. 10,500/- to the aforesaid Pokar son of Kesa, Jaga & Bhanka on 26-4-1949. The present suit was brought on 9-5-1949 by the aforosaid purchasers of Bapi rights against the other two cultivators Lachhman & Pokar son of Magna on the allegations that they were trespassers having vacated the land in accordance with the agreement of 20-1-1949 & re-entered there- after.3. The defts submitted a petn that under the Rajasthan (Protection ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›