Rajasthan Court August 1952 Judgments
The State Vs. Bhawani Shankar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj17
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is a revision by the State praying that the sentence passed upon Bhawani Shankar under Section 302 I. P. C. be enhanced from transportation for life to death. Bhawani Shankar had filed an appeal from. Jail which was dismissed by this Court summarily on the 8th May, 1951. The present revision was filed on the 1st of August, 1951. 2. The prosecution story was briefly this Umaid Bai deceased was a relation of the appellant. The appellant asked her to adopt him as a son to her husband. She, however, refused to do so. This annoyed the appellant with the result that he went into her house on the morning of the 26th February, 1950. He was armed with an axe. He caused her a number of injuries on the head with the result that she died immediately on the spot. This was seen by Basantilal, a grand-son of the deceased by relation who was in the house at the time. Another grand-son by relation named Bhanwarlal, elder brother of Basantilal was also there, but the elder boy was ...
Tag this Judgment!Madansingh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj38
Ranawat, J.1. This is an appeal by Madansingh, who has been convicted of an offence under Section 353, I. P. C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, by the Sessions Judge Jaipur city.2. It is alleged by the prosecution that Mt. Sohni, daughter of Ramchandra, was for some time in the employment of Madansingh, who was a peon in the Customs Department posted at Niwaria. A few days before the occurrence Sohni left the service of the accused, though she used to visit occasionally his house. On or about 19-10-1948, it is said, the accused came to Devpura in a motor truck from Jaipur and in the evening the same day he went to Niwaria and brought Mt. Sohni with him. He then left Sohni on the roadside and, came to Devpura and again returned to the place where he had left Sohni and he got into the motor truck along with Sohni and took her to Jaipur. Sohni was left by the accused at the house of one Chitar from which place the police recovered her a few days' later. The father of Soh...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj71
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Gangadhar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari and prohibition against an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Rajasthan, and has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. On the basis of an anonymous petition dated the 7th October, 1948, two bullocks were seized by the Sub Inspector of Police at a 'mela' at Bharatpur. Enquiries started in connection with these bullocks, and it was said that they belonged to certain Muslims of village Sonoti, who had left for Pakistan. During the course of these enquiries, allegations were made that Gangadhar applicant and Prabhu, one of the opposite parties, who were the persons in, whose possession the two bullocks had been found, had looted the houses of Muslims of Sonoti along with others after these Muslims had run away. On these allegations, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property started an enquiry about the alleged looting. Eventually, on the 22nd of September...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Gulab Bai and anr. Vs. Mt. Manphool Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj42
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to this Full Bench for decision--1. Whether in a case which involves a question of great public or private importance certificate for leave to appeal under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and Section 109(c) of the Civil Procedure Code can be given, even though the valuation is less than that prescribed by Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code and the point in dispute is measurable by money?2. Whether a decision on the point of res judi-cata when there are different views of different High Courts on the point can be said to raise questions of great public and private importance?2. The facts which have led to this reference, may be briefly narrated. A suit was filed by Man-phul Bai against Laduram and Gulab Bai in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, for ejectment and arrears of rent on the basis of a rent note executed by Laduram. ...
Tag this Judgment!Phoolchand and anr. Vs. Badri Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj51
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(c) of the Constitution. It has been referred to this Full Bench for decision, because some of the points involved in this case are the same which arise in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1952 (Mst. Gulab Bai v. Mst. Manphul Bai) in which certain questions were referred to a Full Bench.2. The present application has arisen in the following circumstances:A decree was passed in August 1927 by the District Judge of Alwar in favour of one Gbvindi and against the present applicants Phulchand and Surajmal for about Rs. 7,000/-. It was put into execution, and a compromise was then arrived at by which a certain sum was to be deposited in cash and the rest of the decretal amount was to be paid in annual instalments of Rs. 600/-. In 1931, another execution application was made, and a house was attached, and was sold on the 13th May, 1940. Thereafter, there were certain objections under Order XXI, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanlal Vs. Firm Ramchandermal Jagannath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj216
Ranawat, J. 1. This revision application was filed in the Court of the Ijlas Khas of the former State of Dholpur and this Court has received it on its file by virtue of the Rajasthan Appeals and Petitions (Discontinuance) Ordinance, 1949 (No. 40 of 1949) read with Amendment Ordinance No. 12 of 1950. In a suit filed on the basis of a decree of a Court at Agra, the plaintiff produced a certified copy of the decree and an objection was raised by the opposite side that a certified copy was not admissible into evidence without a certificate under Clause (6) of Section 78, Evidence Act. The trial Court disallowed the objection but on appeal the Civil Judge, Dholpur, ordered that the certified copyproduced by the plaintiff be returned to him for obtaining the requisite certificate. Against this order the plaintiff went in appeal to the High Court of the former State of Dholpur and it was decided by that Court that according to the practice in vogue in that state no certificate of the Politica...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Shakoor Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj115
Wanchoo, C.J.1.This is an appeal by Abdul Shakoor against his conviction under Section 211, Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and may be briefly narrated.3. Abdul Shakoor's brother Saddiq went with a number of persons towards Barmer in order to buy and sell sheep and goats. Abdul Sattar, Mohammad Husain, Chhotu, Sharif and Kalu were the persons who had gone with Saddiq. It appears that these persons returned about the end of October, or beginning of November, 1947 without Saddiq. This naturally caused anxiety to Abdul Shakoor, and he made enquiries as to why his brother had not returned. As a result of these enquiries, he made a complaint Ex. P1 to the Inspector General of Police of the former covenanting State of Jodhpur on 15th November 1947. In the complaint, after narrating the facts which I have mentioned above, Abdul Shakoor said that he made enquiries from Abdul Sattar & he told him that he did not know where Saddiq had gone. Thereafter, search was made for ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Pyarelal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj104
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Pyarelal of an offence under Section 13, Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (48 of 1949).2. It appears that the challan in this case was presented to the City Magistrate Jodhpuron 8-2-1951. The case was thereafter transferred on that very day to the Extra Magistrate for disposal. On that day the property concerned in the case was not brought and, therefore, the statements of the witnesses could not be taken. The case was put off to 9th February when the statement of the accused was taken. But the prosecution evidence could not begin as the property with respect to which the statements were to be taken had not been brought. The case was then fixed for 13-3-1951 and on that day again the property was not produced in Court. Thereupon the Magistrate closed the case for the prosecution and acquitted the accused as there was no evidence in support of the prosecution case. The present appeal is against this order o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›