Rajasthan Court August 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.
Nanka Vs. Govt. of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj153
Sharma, J.1. The applt. Nanaka Alias Nanga Singh of village Bisonda in Dholpur Sub-division Bharatpur, was arrested on 26-11-1949 on the requestion of the police Kheragarh, Dist., Agra, in Uttar Pradesh, dated 11-9-1949, for an alleged offence Under Section 397/365, Penal Code. Later on, he was let off on bail on 17-2-1950. He makes this appln. Under Section 491, Cr. P. C. on the ground that his arrest & detention were illegal as there was no law of extradition in force in Dholpur State at the time of his arrest. His conditional release on bail was therefore, not justified. He is entitled to be released unconditionally & is not liable to be surrendered to Uttar Pradesh. The bail bonds be therefore cancelled.2. It may also be mentioned that the appct. was later on informed that he was detained in connection with some local case also. But he was ultimately discharged. This has, however, no bearing on this case.3. We have heard learned counsel for the appct. as well as the Govt. Advocate....
Haqiqatullah Khan Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj69
Nawalkishore, C.J.1. This Ct has been moved by Haqiqatullah Khan for action being taken under Section 491, Cr. P. C. on the ground that his detention in the Central Jail of Jodhpur under the orders of the Rajasthan Govt was illegal & improper.2. A few facts may be stated to show how the question involved in this petn arises. On. 10-12-1949 an order was passed by the Govt of the United States of Rajasthan that it was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petnr from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety, the maintenance of public order & communal harmony, it was necessary to detain him. An order was accordingly passed that he shall be arrested forthwith & detained in Jail for a period of six months from the date of his arrest. It is alleged in the petn that he was actually arrested under the Rajasthan Public Security Ordinance of 1949 on 11-12-1949. On 26-1-1950, the Constitution of India came into force & according to Article 13(1), all laws in force in the territory of In...
Narainji and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ76
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. This is an accused's application la revision refusing them to compound an offence punishable under Section 420, Penal Code under the provisions of the law as laid down under Section 345, Criminal P.C. It appears that a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicants on the ground that instead of supplying cocoanut oil to the complainant they cheated him and supplied water and thus put him in the aggregate to a loss of Rs. 5516-6 6. The two Courts below refused to give permission for the compounding of the offence mainly on three grounds-firstly, that the value of the property involved was large, secondly, that the investigation of the case involved great pains and time and, thirdly, the matter was of great public importance. The counsel for the accused-applicants has not been able to point out as to why in a case of this nature permission be given to compound the offence. The allegation of the prosecution is clearly to the effect ...
Amarchand Vs. Mr. X. Advocate
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj110
Nawalkishore, C.J.1. This is an appln by Amarchand for action being taken against Mr. X, Advocate of Sojat under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act. The petn is based on a number of grounds, most of which are common to the parties, & these may be stated at once before coming to the points on which the parties are at divergence. The appct Amar Chand contacted the resp for the purpose of instituting a suit for the recovery of Rs. 931/- & also for the possession of a well. On 31-7-1947 (Sawan Vad 11 St. 2003) he appears to have delivered to him the relevant papers in connection with this case & also executed a power of attorney in favour of the resp. In this power of attorney, which is Ex. P-3 on the record, the sum of Rs. 75/- is mentioned as having been settled on account of remuneration. The word ^^vnk^^ struck out and the word ^^ra^^ written on the top of it showing thereby that nothing whatsoever had been paid out of the remuneration settled between the parties. The next sentence wh...
Madangopal Vs. Narsingdas and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Raj64
Nawalkishore, C.J.1. This is a defendant's regular first appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for Rs. 5800 with costs.2. The various events in this case date back to 1941 when the defendant was carrying on business in Calcutta and acting as the Managing Director of a firm by the name of Film Corporation of India Ltd. In the months of May and June 1941, he drew three Hundies in his capacity as Managing Director of the above mentioned firm as per detail below (1) On 31-5-1941 he drew a Hundi for Rs. 1200 in favour of Mt. S. Devi. (2) Again on 31-5-1941 he drew a Hundi for Rs. 1200 in favour of Narsinghdas Agarwal and Sons. (3) On 24-6-1941 he drew a third Hundi for Rs. 2500 in favour of Narsingdas Agarwal and Sons.3. The drawee of these Hundies was Mdangopal Kabra, l Motisil Street, Calcutta. All these Hundies were payable after sixty days and when they were presented to him, he accepted them. Under the acceptance he signed his own name bu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›