Rajasthan Court October 1951 Judgments
Jiwan Ram Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1236
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused-applicant stands convicted under Sections 304(A) and 338 of the I.P.C. and sentenced in the aggregate to undergo six months' R.I. The main contention of the counsel for the accused-applicant before the Court is that the accused-applicant at the time in question was not driving the lorry rashly or negligently. The evidence on the record of the trial Court goes to show that at the time in question the lorry was being driven at a speed of 30-35 miles an hour. The site plan on the record of the trial Court goes to show that at the place where the accident took place the road turns sharply towards the right. The words 'rashly' or 'negligently' mean doing an act without due diligence and caution. It is accordingly to be seen whether at the time of the accident in question the accused-applicant was driving the lorry with due diligence and caution or not.3. A lorry is more difficult to control than a car. The site-plan shows that at the...
Tag this Judgment!Uda Vs. Balu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj169
ORDERBapna, J.1. These two revisions arise out of a single order passed by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur, on 9th of March, 1951, in two connected appeals.2. In execution of a decree obtained by Kashi Ram against Khushal, the judgment-debtor's property was put up for sale and on the 12th of January, 1951, the Nazir accepted the last bid of Balu Lal amounting to Rs. 6310/-. Balu Lal was also a mortgagee of this property for a sum of Rs. 5200/-. Balu Lal paid one-fourth of the amount of the purchase money after adjusting his mortgage amount to the Nazir and the Nazir made a report to the Munsiff of Rajsamand in whose Court the execution proceedings were being carried on stating the above facts. The Court ordered that the amount of Rs. 277/8/- paid by Balu Lal be deposited in the Court. Some time later on the same day, a petition was presented by Chhagan Lal that he had been making bids at the sale of the property and had just absented himself for about 10 minutes after making a b...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Raj40
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This appeal is by Kanji, who has been sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge of Jhalawar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judge has also made a reference to this Court for confirmation of the sentence of death.2. The prosecution story was briefly this A Barat had come to village Patlai and was staying in a Bageechi there. In that connection a lot of drinking had been going on since the morning of 20th May, 1950. Among those, who are said to have taken part in this drinking, was Kanji appellant. At about 6 P. M. on that day, the deceased Shiv Lal, a boy of 14, was picking raw mangoes in the Bageechi along with another boy. The appellant turned up in the Bageechi carrying a gun with him. He went past the people who were sitting there and suddenly shot at Shiv Lal from a distance of about 10 paces. Shiv Lal fell down and died shortly afterwards. Another boy who was near Shiv Lal also got slight injuries. After shooting Shiv Lal, the appellant w...
Tag this Judgment!Nathmal and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj74
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Nathmal and Mithalal under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction, order, or writ in the nature of 'mandamus', prohibition, 'quo warranto' and 'certiorari', or any of them, to be issued against the State of Rajasthan and certain officers of the State, who have been made parties to the application.2. The facts, which have led to this application, are these. The petitioners are merchants at Rani-wara, and deal in foodgrains for which they hold licences. On the 7th of October, 1960, the petitioners were informed by the Sub-Divisional Offi-cer, Bhinmal, that their stocks of 'bajra' were frozen by him under orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Jodhpur. Later, they were informed by the Tehsildar of Jaswantpura that their stocks of 'bajra' were requisitioned by the Government, and they were ordered to sell it at the rate of Rs. 9/- per 'maund'. The petitioners made various representations to the Deputy Commissioner and Co...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Udairaj Bankatlal Vs. the Commissioner Civil Supplies Rajasthan a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj79
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Firm Udairaj Bankatlal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction, order, or writ in the nature of 'mandamus', prohibition, 'quo warranto', and 'certiorari', or any of them, to be issued against the State of Rajasthan and certain officers of the State, who have been made parties to the application. 2. The facts, which have led to this application are these. The petitioner is a merchant at Parbatsar, and deals in foodgrains, for which it holds a licence. 103 bags of barley, which were lying in the petitioner's godown in Basroli, were freezed in March 1949, under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Jodhpur. This happened before the United State of Rajasthan was formed. The grain remained freezed for some time, while the petitioner made representations to Government. Eventually the petitioner was asked to sell the grain at Rs. 9/- per 'maund' on the 3rd of January, 1951. The petitioner seems to have asked fo...
Tag this Judgment!Udai Chand Vs. Mt. Bakka and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj52
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Udaichand against the decree of the District Judge of Bikaner dated 26th of May 1950 dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for pre-emption. 2. The suit related to the pre-emption of a house in the city of Bikaner. It belonged to one Ghewarchand Suthar. This man sold the house to Mt. Bakko wife of Senskaran Oswal. The plaintiff-appellant claimed pre-emption on the ground that his house was contiguous to the house of Ghewar Chand and opened on the same side and he was of the same community as Ghewar Chand and was therefore entitled to preempt. Pre-emption was also claimed on another ground based on Clause 7 of Section 10(1) of the Bikaner State Pre-emption Act (No. 1 of 1919) but that ground is not being urged before us in appeal. Reliance is being placed entirely on Clause 8 of Section 10 (1) of the Act. 3. The suit was opposed by Mt. Bakko. She admitted that the plaintiff's house was contiguous to that of her vendor and that the tw...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Tulchhi Vs. Suraj Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj84
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Mt. Tulchhi against the decree of a learned Single Judge of this Court in second appeal.2. The facts of the case are these. An ejectment suit was instituted by Mt. Tulchhi in the Court of Munsif, Sujangarh, against Suraj Mal and Jugraj. The suit related to three shops situated in Chhapar. These shops were rented to Suraj Mal and Jugraj, defendants-respondents by Mt. Tulchhi for a fixed period of one year on 'Asoj Sud 12, Samvat' 2003. The respondents did not vacate the shops after the period of one year was over, and consequently the pre-sent suit was brought for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 79/- as damages for use and occupation.3. The suit was resisted by the defendants-respondents on the ground that they were protected under Clause 3 of the Bikaner Prevention of Eviction Order, 1942, and could not, therefore, be ejected.4. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, and the decree was upheld by the first Appellate Court. There was a second appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Sahai Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj101
ORDERSharma, J.1. Proceedings under 8. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khetri on the application of Krishna son of Nanag Jat (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party). During the proceedings, property was attached. On the 17th November, 1951 learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings as in his opinion there was no longer any apprehension of the breach of peace. After the proceedings were dropped the opposite party presented an application that the land and the crop in dispute were in his possession and should be restored to him. The learned Magistrate accepted this application and directed the attached property to be handed over to the opposite party.2. Against this order the applicants Kishan Sahai and Ghod had went in revision to the Court of Session at Jhunjhnu. The Additional Sessions Judge Jhunjhnu has made this reference recommending that the order of the sub-Divisional Magistrate Khetri dated the 9th January, 1951 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›