Rajasthan Court May 1951 Judgments
Hazari Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1951
Reported in: 1954CriLJ214
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused-applicant stands convicted under Section 379, I. P. C. and sentenced to receive fifteen stripes. The two Courts below have definitely come to the conclusion that he was caught red-handed stealing one and a half, seers of sugar from a goods-wagon standing in the railway yard. There is thus no reason for me to hold on the revisional side that he has wrongly been convicted under Section 379, I.P.C.3. The accused-applicant has been sentenced to receive fifteen stripes. It has been argued that the sentence of whipping errs on the side of severity. The accused-applicant is a khalasi coolie in the employ of B. B. & C. I. Rly. He is bound to be dismissed from service as a result of the conviction. In the circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of whipping is set aside and he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of six months on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1379
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The only question that arises in this application in revision is whether the entire penalty due under the surety bond forfeited be realized or not Under Section 514, Cr.P.C. The perusal of the record of the trial court shows that on the day in question the accused was lying ill in the Victoria Hospital at Aimer and that after his discharge therefrom he was taken in custody in another criminal case and was lodged in the Central Jail at Ajmer. The surety bond, in the circumstances, rightly stands forfeited. It was however, beyond the control of the accused to have presented himself before the court concerned on the day fixed for the disposal of the case. The surety also could not toe blamed because he did his level best to see that these facts were brought to the notice of the Court concerned. There is thus no reason as to why a lenient view in the matter be not taken and the entire penalty remitted Under Section 514(5), Cr.P.C.3. The applica...
Tag this Judgment!Nahar Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj156
1. This revision has arisen out of a reference by the Ses. J. of Tonk in a revision before him out of proceedings under Sections 145 and 107, Criminal P.C. When the matter came up before the learned single Judge of this Court, he referred the following three points for decision by a Division Bench:-(1) 'Whether a Magistrate was competent to initiate proceedings under Sections 107 & 145 Cr.P.C. simultaneously;(2) In case the Magistrate finds after enquiry under Section 145 Cr.P.C. that the property in dispute was in joint possession of the parties then (a) what should be the nature of the order if one would be passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. or (b) should the Magistrate proceed to pass an order under Section 146 Cr.P.C., &(3) In case the finding of the Magistrate was under Clause (2) above, & he apprehended a breach of peace between the parties while each attempted to oust the other, was he competent to ask for security to keep the peace under Section 107 Cr.P.C. where (a) the proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Mal Vs. the Income Tax Officer, Jodhpur Division
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Raj150a; [1952]21ITR33(Raj)
Wanchoo, C.J.1. An application has been made by Pratap Mal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ or direction to the Income-Tax Officer of Jodhpur Division. In this application a prayer was made for issue of a temporary injunction restraining the Income Tax Officer from making any assessment of income-tax on the income for the year 1949-50 on any resident of Jodhpur Division, including the applicant. An 'ad interim' injunction was issued to the opposite party restraining him from proceeding to assess income-tax on the applicant, & a notice was also issued of this 'ad interim' injunction. A further notice was issued to the opposite party asking him to show cause why an 'ad interim' injunction be not issued to him restraining him from proceeding with the assessment of Income-tax on all the residents of Jodhpur Division.2. The opposite party has appeared in answer to the notices issued to him, & opposes the issue of an 'ad interim' injunction restraining him f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›