Rajasthan Court August 1950 Judgments
Premi Khem Raj Sharma Vs. Chief Secretary
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj113
Sharma, J.1. This is an appln by Praml Khem Raj, Advocate the editor of 'Congress Ka Khuni Itihas', under Section 99 B of the Cr.P.C. The circumstances giving rise to it are as follows:2. Premi KhemraJ (who will hereinafter be referred to as the author in this judgment) edited a booklet named 'Congress Ka Khuni Itihas in the year 1946 & it was published by Hindu Pustak Bhandar, Jaipur, in December, 1946. The then Govt of Jaipur by its order No. 8984/MB, dated 9-7-1948, published in the Jaipur Gazette dated 1-8-1948, proscribed the said booklet as well as another booklet, Punjab Men Pakistani Gundashahi' edited by Gulab Chand Kala, which was also published by Hindu Pustak Bhandar, Jaipur. The order runs as follows:''Congress Ka Khuni Itihas''Punjab Men Pakistani Gundashahi'Jaipur, 9-7-1948.Whereas the Govt of Jaipur are satisfied that the circulation within the State of the marginally noted booklet is likely to be prejudicial to communal harmony & consequently to the maintenance of publ...
Tag this Judgment!Har Nath Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1563
Atma Charan, J.C.1. This is an appeal by Har Nath from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 4.7.1950, convicting him under Section 376, Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment.2. Mt. Santok (21) is said to be the victim and Mt. Annopi (8) is the daughter of her 'jeth'. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.8.1950 at about mid-day she along with her niece went to her field to fetch some ears of corn. When she was about to return, the appellant came from behind and caught hold of her. She began to struggle, and thereon the appellant threw her down 3-4 times and committed rape with her. Mt. Santok thereafter went back to her village, and reported the matter. She then lodged an f.i.r. at the P.S., and as a result of the investigation the appellant was put for trial under Section 376, Penal Code. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court denied the allegations of the prosecution, and his case was that he had falsely been implicated a...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanand Vs. Biharilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Raj64
Sharma, J.1. This is the defendant's appeal against the order of remand made by the learned Civil Judge Nim-ka-thana and arises under the following circumstances: There was partnership between Gajanand defendant-appellant and Biharilal plaintiff-respondent, which was dissolved on 18-4-1948, and a writing was made evidencing the dissolution of partnership and stating that Rs. 1246/- were due from the plaintiff to the defendant and were paid, and that an accounting was yet to be made about a transaction of 80 bags of sugar. It was agreed that the plaintiff would be entitled to inspect the Bahi Khatas within 20 days from the date of the document and he would be entitled to recover any sum which might be found due on their inspection. It was also provided that if there was any mistake in accounting, the parties would be entitled to pay and receive whatever sum might be correctly found out from the accounts. The exact words used in Hindi are 'Bhul chuq leni deni'. The plaintiff brought the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanraj Vs. Vijai Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj74
Bapna, J.1 This is an appeal by the pltf in a money suit against one of the defts.2. The applt, Kanraj, filed a suit on 24-7-1948, against the resp, Vijai Singh, Jagirdar of Ramseen, & one Khub Chand on the allegations that Khub Chand had secured a decree on 4-4-1947, against Mohabbat Singh, father of Vijai Singh, for recovery of Rs. 11,359/7/- (the correct figure is Rs. 11,365/7/-), from the Ct of Wards, Jodhpur, & Khub Chand thereafter made an assignment of that decree in favour of the applt on 27-7-1947. It was alleged that the deft, Vijai Singh, being the heir & legal representative of Mohabbat Singh, & being in possession of the property left by Mohabbat Singh, was liable to pay the amount of the decree, but had refused to do so, & as the Thikana of the deft was no longer under the Ct of Wards, the suit had to be filed by the pltf. It was prayed (1) that a decree for recovery of Rs. 11,365/7/- be passed in favour of the pltf against Vijai Singh, & (2) that, if deft 2, Khub Chand, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Vs. Raghubar Dayal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Raj66
Sharma, J.1. This is the judgment-debtor's appeal against the appellate judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, Alwar, and arises out of execution proceedings. The facts are as follows: A decree was obtained by Data Rani against Chetram for the recovery of Rs. 2,130/6/6 on the 13th December 1923 from the Civil Court at Alwar, Rs. 130/6/6 were paid at the time of the decree and five annual instalments of Rs. 400/- were fixed. We are concerned, with the last two of them, i.e., the 4th and the 5th. The fourth instalment was payable on Magsir Section 2, St. 1984, corresponding to 26th November 1927, and the fifth and the last instalment was payable on the 4th December 1928. After the decree both the original decree-holder and judgment-debtor died. Raghubar Dayal, a grandson of the original decree-holder, applied in execution on the 21st September 1928 for the recovery of the fourth instalment which had become due and was not paid. The execution was filed against Mangil...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Birdhichand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj25
Nawal Kishore, C.J.1. Criminal App. No. 81 of 2005 has been filed by the State from the order of the learned Special Magistrate acquitting the accused Birdhichand of the offence under Section 7, Opium Act. In another case, the Special Magistrate had convicted the accused Harla under the same provision of the Opium Act and also sentenced him. The learned Sessions Judge, however, has made a reference to this Court recommending, for reasons recorded by him, that the order of conviction and sentence may be quashed and the accused acquitted. This is reference No. 229 of 2005. Since in both these cases allied questions of law arise, they will be disposed of by this judgment.2. In both these cases, the accused were arrested for being in possession of a certain amount of opium. In the first mentioned case, there was the further allegation that the accused had also sold a portion of the opium in his possession. In both these cases, the Court came to the conclusion that the Opium Act was ultra v...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Nanga and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj23
Nawal Kishore, C.J.1. These are two appeals Nos. 57 of 1950 and 79 of St. 2005 by the State against the orders of learned Extra Magistrate and Sessions Judge, District Jaipur, respectively, acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 20(2), Criminal Tribes Act. Since the point arising in them is common, this judgment will dispose of both the appeals.2. In App. No. 79 the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused holding that the Criminal Tribes Act was only a Police and Judicial Department Notification and had not been made by or with the assent of His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur as was necessary according to the definition of 'Act' in Section 3, Jaipur General Clauses Act. The Act was accordingly held to be ultra vires and the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the learned Magistrate of the trial Court was set aside. In App. No. 57, which arises from a different case, the Extra Magistrate has acquitted the accused following the above view of the S...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Pabudan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj84
ORDERBharadwaj, J.1. Pabudan Singh was challaned in the Court of the Mag. 1st Class, Sujangarh, under Section 307, I.P.C. The learned Mag. after the inquiry framed a charge under Section 506, I.P.C. against him. The prosecution, being dissatisfied with the order of the Mag. preferred a revision petn. under Section 435, Criminal P. C. in the Ct. of the Ses. J. Churu. The learned Ses. J. after hearing both the parties, has made this report, under Section 438, Criminal P. C, to this Ct. with the recommendation that the Mag. should be ordered, by this Ct. to frame charge against the accused under Section 307, I.P.C. instead of under Section 506, I. P. C, already framed by him.2. There is no doubt that the Ses. J. is within his powers, in making this report to this Ct., under Section 488, Cr. P. C, but the question arises -could not the learned Ses. J. proceed in this case under Sections 436 & 437, Criminal P. C. & dispose of the petn. himself In that case much of the trouble & time of this...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Chand Vs. Bheron Dan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj85
ORDERGupta, J.1. This is an appln. for review of the judgment of this Ct. dated 24-1-1950, passed in S. A. No. 57 of 1948 in which the applicants propose, to rely mainly on a ruling of the Nagpur Judicial Commissioner's Court reported in Rukhmabai v. Ganpatrao, A. I. R. (19) 1932 Nag. 177: (28 N. L. R. 231) in which it has been laid down that if an omission to notice one particular provision of law was a satisfactory ground for entertaining an appln. for review which had been pointed out by the appct., much more so was the omission to consider the important facts which were on the record & which the Judge himself immediately on passing his order realised that he had overlooked, & which in his opinion, would' have led him to pass an order materially different & that both were cases of an omission & not the cases of mis-application or of taking a wrong view of the law on fully considered facts of the case.2. Before dealing with the main contention, one minor objection which is of no grea...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Lal Vs. Deena Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj79
ORDERGupta, J.1. This civil revn-petn is directed against an order of the Dist J., Bikaner, dated 14-3-1950. A suit had been filed on behalf of the opposite party against the petnr for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4684/6/- on 14-9-1949. After the appct, had filed his written statement in which he had denied to have received any amount from the opposite party by way of loan but alleged that he had received the sum towards satisfaction of the debt he had advanced to one Ram Singh on the pltf standing surety for the repayment of the loan, the Ct framed certain issues & proceeded to try the suit. The issues that were framed were to the following effect:'1. Had the pltf stood surety for the debt of Thakur Bam Singh & did the deft receive the amount of Rs. 4268/3/- towards the debt of Ram Singh?2. Is the deft liable to pay the interest claimed?'2. Not satisfied with the first of these issues in which initial burden had been cast on the deft, he applied to the Trial Ct on 13-1-1950, for amend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »