Rajasthan Court March 1952 Judgments
Nanu Ram Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1372
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused-applicant stands convicted Under Section 7 of Central Act XXIV of 1946 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- or in default of such, to further undergo four months' R.I.3. It is alleged that the accused-applicant contravened the provisions of Clause 3(a) of Chief Commissioner's Notification No. R/7, dated 7.12.1950, which runs as below:No person shall, on occasion of marriages or funerals make or prepare or cause to be made or prepared or possess food to feed, treat or distribute amongst more than twenty-four persons excluding the members of the family of the host.4. The F.I.R. in the case was lodged by the P.C. Girdhari Lal, but it has not been produced by the prosecution on the pretext that it was not taken down as a F.I.R. but was taken down as a report in the General Diary. This was no ground on which the report which, in fact, really amounted to a F.I.R. should have...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Khan Vs. Bhoor Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj152
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a revision against an order of discharge Of some of the accused in a case pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jetaran.2. Certain dispute arose as to the apportionment of rents of the 'Rabi' crop of Smt. 2004 between the Thakur of Nimbera and Bhoor Singh and, others, and on an application on behalf of the Thakur, and 'Amin' Hardeosingh and a Kanwaria Anwarkhan was appointed by the Executive Hakim of Jetaran by an order dated 30th March 1948. The instruction were that they were to have the grain of 'bera' Khera thrashed out and rents apportioned according to previous practice in the presence of the parties. He also issued notice to the opposite party in this respect.Anwar Khan Kanwaria made a report to the Hakim on 20th May 1943 that he was on duty at 'Bera' khera and got the grain thrashed out by 19th May 1948 and had put a seal on it and was guarding the grain for the purpose of apportionment, but on the night between the 19th and 20th May, Ram Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Bakhtawar Singh Vs. S.i. Gajsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ149
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. This is a complainant's application in revision from the order of the trial Court dismissing his complaint against the accused opposite-party under Section 203, Criminal P.C.3. The case of the complainant is that the accused opposite-party obtained his motor-cycle bearing No. DLA 9705 under a false pretence and that lie then got it registered in his own name with the authorities concerned by dishonestly re-presenting to them that it had been purchased by him in some auction-sale at Delhi. The trial Court held that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and, as such, dismissed the complaint straightway under Section 203, Criminal P.C. The complainant has come up in revision from this order of the trial Court to the Court.4. The trial Court in its order rightly writer to observe that 'dishonest intention is the gist of an offence punishable under Section 406, Penal Code.' It is accordingly just to be seen whether the accused op...
Tag this Judgment!Bodu Lal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1386
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused-applicant stands convicted Under Section 9 of Central Act I of 1878 and sentenced to undergo three months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of such, to undergo further R.I. for one month.3. The first point pressed in this revision on behalf of the accused-applicant is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the article recovered was 'opium' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. The article recovered has been seen by me, and is certainly nothing else but spontaneously coagulated juice of capsules of the poppy. In State v. Kaptan Singh 0043/1952 : AIR1952All118 , it has been observed as below:Opium in the form of coagulated juice of poppy is so well known in this country being widely used for medicinal & other purposes that anyone can identify it and it is unnecessary to call in an expert to establish its identity. If an Excise Inspector says that certain article is crude opium his testimony cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Lal Vs. Jootha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Raj167
Bapna, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act (No. 39 of 1925). 2. The respondent Jootha applied for grant of succession certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased Punamchand who died on Second Srawan Sudi 15, Smt. 2004 (31st of Aug. 1947). The respondent claimed to be the nearest heir of the deceased and alleged that one Chunilal, who had made a separate application for grant of such certificate was not the nearest heir. The appellant Shivlal objected to the grant of certificate to Jootha alleging that the nearest heir of the deceased Punamchand was Chunilal, who later on died bequeathing all the property to the objector. It was mentioned that Chunilal had filed a petition for grant of succession certificate in respect of the estate of Punamchand out that petition became infructuous owing to Chunilal's death. The relevant portion of the pedigree relied upon by the respondent is as under : HARING ______________________|_____________________ | ...
Tag this Judgment!Manmal Saraogi Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ48
Atma Charan, C.J.1. Heard the parties.2. The accused-applicant stands convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act and sentenced in the aggregate to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-.3. The only point pressed at the time of arguments in revision is that as the trial Court itself had issued the search warrant the accused-applicant has been materially prejudiced and, as such, he should be acquitted. The counsel for the accused-applicant in this connection has drawn my attention to the rulings as cited in Rajaram v. Emperor AIR 1924 Lah 247 and Syam Behari v. Emperor AIR 1934 All 987 (2). The Government Advocate, on the other hand, relies on the rulings as cited in 1935 AMLJ 59 and Nemichand v. Crown 1938 AMLJ 40. The later set of the rulings clearly lays down that in such cases a Court would not be justified in raising presumptions as could have been raised in case a valid warrant had been issued. On the evidence of the parties otherwise the trial Court as well as the appellate Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Rattanlal Vs. Ghisulal Pandiya, Publisher
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1234
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties,2. This is an application by one Rattanlal drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that the Printer and Publisher of the 'Azad' Ghisulal Pandiya has committed contempt of the Court and the Courts subordinate to it by Printing and Publishing an article headed 'Self-interested persons unsuccessful in the Court of Session' in his paper, dated 24.11.1951. The article in question reads as below:A few days ago due to dirty party-formation Seth of Bijainagar filed a case in the Local Court of City Magistrate against ex-Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Shri Shantilalji Gupta. Against it Shri Guptaji filed a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Shri Roy. This petition was accepted on Tuesday by Shri Roy and now the case cannot go on at all. There was a big crowd present in Court to hear result of the petition and on hearing these lines in judgment that the case is quite malicious and fabricated, all unanimously praised Shri ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Chand and ors. Vs. Gambheermal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj31
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Gulab Chand and others, defendants in a pre-emption suit, against the decree of the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by which that court allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs Gambheermal and others and decreed the suit.2. The facts of the case are these. Gulab-Chand appellant is the maternal uncle of Ghisu Lal respondent and the other four appellants are sons of Gulab Chand. In June 1945, Ghisu. Lal executed a contract of sale of a house and a shop belonging to him in favour of Gulab Chand and his sons and received some earnest money. When Ghisu Lal failed to execute the sale-deed within the time agreed upon, Gulab Chand and his sons filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. That suit was compromised and a deed of gift was executed by Ghisu Lal in favour of Gulab Chand and his sons. Thereafter, the present suit was brought by Gambheermal and others for pre-emption. Their case was that the gift deed was a collusive t...
Tag this Judgment!Bishan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj46
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Thakur Bishan Singh, Jagirdar of village Nim-bol, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus or any other appropriate writ may be issued to the State of Rajasthan, and the order made by the State under section 7 (1) (b) of the Marwar Court of Wards Act be quashed.2. The applicant's case is that in November, 1948, the Government of the former State of Jodhpur placed the Jagir of Nimbol under the management of the Court of Wards on certain grounds. Representations were made against that order, and eventually in September, 1950, the Government of Rajasthan set aside the order of the Government of the former State of Jodhpur, and released the Thikana from the management of the Court of Wards, and handed back the possession to the applicant. Thereafter, on the 18th of June, 1951, the Government of Rajasthan again took over the management of the estate under section 7 (1) (...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Nanak and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj133
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Nanak and Hukma by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ganganagar.2. The prosecution story was briefly this. On the evening of 13-5-1949, Ram Chander was returning from the shop of his son-in-law and going home. When he passed by the houses of some 'Nais', he saw Hukma and Nanak hiding there. As he passed in front of them, he saw that they were armed with 'gandasis' and Nanak asked him to stop. Hukma then asked Nanak to shoot Ramchander with a pistol. On hearing this, Ramchander turned round and thereupon he was immediately attacked by Nanak with the 'gandasi'. He fell down injured and thereupon Hukrna gave him another 'gandasi' blow on his left hand. A number of people who were passing that way, intervened and the assailants ran away. Information was sent to Ganpat, nephew of Ramchander, and he came and removed Ramchander to his house. The matter was reported in 'thana' Chunawarh the next day at 3 P.M., the distance t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »