Rajasthan Court November 1951 Judgments
State Vs. Nathmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1259
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate, Bikaner.2. On the 4th November 1950, the Sub-Inspector Deshnok detected two bags of rice with one Nathmal while he was travelling in a bus 'unning from Bikaner to Nokha. On the 17th December 1930, an offence was registered against Nathmal for contravening the provisions of Notification No. 51 of 23rd December 1949 and thereby committing an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The intimation of the registration of the offence reached the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 20th December 1950. On 26th December, the said Nathmal appeared before the Sub-divisional Magistrate Bikaner North and made an application that although the police had registered the case against him, he had under the law not committed an offence as the law relied upon by the Police had since been repealed. He prayed that he may be allowed to remain on bail as he was prepared to stand the trial but...
Tag this Judgment!Beeramdas Vs. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Raj40
Sharma, J.1. This is an application by Beeramdas under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or certiorari or any other writ or direction. It arises under the following circumstances. The opposite party No. 2, Daluram, made an application under Section 7, Rajasthan Tenant's Protection Ordinance, for his reinstatement over certain agricultural land. The applicant opposed the application put the Sub-divisional Officer, Junnjhunu, allowed the application and ordered the reinstatement of Daluram. Beeramdas went in revision to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. This revision application was allowed and further enquiry was ordered. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after some additional enquiry, again allowed the application. A revision application was filed against this order and the Revenue Board by its judgment dated 20-8-1951, upheld the order of reinstatement made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The applicant Beeramdas now comes to this court ...
Tag this Judgment!Pusaram and ors. Vs. Manmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj102
Bapna, J.1. This is a second appeal by the contesting defendants in a suit for redemption. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 sued the appellants on the allegations that a certain shop described in the plaint was mortgaged by Pratapmal and his sons Chhotmal and Jethmal with Roopram and Kaniram on 'Kati Vadi' 13, Smt. 1917 for a sum of Rs. 451/-. It was stated that the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 6 to 38 were successors-in-title to the mortgagors, and defendants Nos. 1 to 5, who are now appellants, were the successors-in-title to the mortgagee. The appellants denied the fact of the mortgage and the fact of the plaintiffs being the successors-in-title to the mortgagors claiming to redeem the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 2nd March 1944 but the case was remanded for a fresh trial on appeal, and after re-trial the suit was decreed. The contesting defendants being successors-in-title to the mortgagees filed an appeal which was dismissed.2. The findng that the shop was mortgaged by...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj153
1. Jagannath has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bara under Sections 376 and 451, Penal Code and sentenced to 2 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 51/- in default to undergo further rigorous impisonment for four months. It was alleged by the prosecution that on the 5th February, 1950 when Mt. Pana a girl of about eight years was engaged in sweeping the grains at the platform near her house in village Bhanwara some time in the afternoon the accused Jagannath came to her and took her away inside the house and in the IKDARA committed rape upon her. At that time there were only some children at the place; two of whom were a girl Mt. Kessar and a boy Krishna both about seven years old. When her father returned to the house she told him about the act of the accused.The girl's father Madna went to the Police Station to lodge a report but it was not recorded. He therefore, made an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chabra who directed the police t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1165
Atma Charan, C.J.1. The accused-appellant stands convicted Under Section 304(2) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment for haying committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder causing the death of one Narain by giving him two blows with a stick.2. The fact that the accused-appellant so caused the death of the deceased is clear from the evidence of Mt. Ganga (P.W. 4) and Surja (P.W. 9) as also from the 'confession' of the accused-appellant made before a Magistrate. The counsel for the accused-appellant at the time of argument in appeal did not challenge the evidence to the effect. The main contention of the counsel is that the offence of the accused-appellant in so giving the deceased two blows with a stick actually comes within the purview of Section 325 of the I.P.C. and not within the purview of Section 304(2) of the I.P.C.3. The post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased was performed two days after his death. He was found to have had...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Lal Vs. Durga Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Raj36
Ranawat, J. 1. On an application filed by the defendant under Article 133 of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court an order was made by a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a party, on the 27th November 1950, by which it was held that the defendant had a right to so in appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, provided he can show that the value of detriment, which he would suffer on account of the execution of the decree is Rs. 20,000/- or upwards, which would be the value of the entire property, as it now stands, including the additions made by the defendantafter the filing of the suit. As the property had not been valued, a direction was issued to the District Judge, Jaipur City, to hold an enquiry in the matter and to submit his findings to this Court. In pursuance of that order, the District Judge, Jaipur city, held an enquiry and he has submitted the papers back to this Court along with his finding that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Budh Mal Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj151
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Budhmal Radhakishan Parmar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ order or direction against the State of Rajasthan, and the Commissioner, Civil Supplies Jaipur, and the Deputy Commissioner, Civil supplies, Jodhpur, prohibiting them from proceeding with certain contracts with respect to grain.2. The facts alleged by the applicant are that tenders were called for a contract of handling work in connection with the Grain Stores of Jodhpur Division for the year 1951. In that connection, the applicant made a tender, and complied with the necessary directions in that behalf. All the tenders received were opened, and the applicant was verbally informed that he would be appointed contractor for the said work for the year 1951.Thereafter, the deposits of the other tenderers were returned, while the deposit of the applicant was retained. Later, however, the Civil Supplies Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner cancelled the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Abdul Rahim Vs. Deputy Custodian
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj162
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Abdul Rahim under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari or any other writ praying that certain proceedings taken by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Jaipur, were without jurisdiction and should be quashed along with all proceedings consequent on the proceeding of the Assistant Custodian or any other order or direction which the Court considers proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The application has been made in the following circumstances :There is a house No. 767 situate in Mohalla Bisatiyan Chaukri Ghat Darwaza, Jaipur City. A report was made to the Assistant Custodian, Jaipur, in April 1950 that this house belonged to one Aja Khan, who had left for Pakistan and had been taken in possession by certain Muslims from Agra without authority. The Assistant Custodian called for a report from the Field Inspector and after perusing that report notice was issued under Rule of the Administration of Evacuee Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Pheli Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Raj158
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Pheli against his conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur city.2. The facts which have been found by the Court below and which in our opinion have been proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are these :3. The appellant Pheli had taken some land from Amolakh P. W. 4. On the 5th of May 1950 the appellant was at his field which is near the well of Amolakh. The deseased Hukma was also there. The cattle of Hukma had trespassed into the field of Pheli and thereupon there was an exchange of abuses between them. This took place at the well of Amolakh and while the exchange of abuses was going on Hukma gave a lathi blow on the person of Pheli. Pheli happened to have a sword with him and struck Hukma with the sword in return. The first blow was stopped by Hukma on his lathi and then Pheli gave a second blow on the left leg of Hukma with the Result that Hukma fell down injured. There after P...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranjilal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1182
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. Under Section 234 of Reg. VI of 1925, the Magistrate was perfectly justified in proceeding with the application of the Municipal Board for the recovery, of the tax in question, but he could not have finally ordered the sale of the property attached without first issuing a notice to the applicant to show cause as to why the tax in question be not recovered by the sale of the property attached. The applicant then could have taken any such valid objections as he could have taken on the application of the Municipal Board. The Magistrate there and then only could have disposed of the application of the Municipal Board after hearing the parties. He could not have issued any order straightaway for the recovery of the tax in question by attachment and sale of the property of the applicant.3. The reference accordingly is accepted, the proceedings before the trial Court are quashed and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the application of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »