Rajasthan Court June 1953 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shewaram Deepchand and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-26-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ235
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Shewaram, Iswarlal, Narain and Shri-rang were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer of offences under Section 395 read with 8. 397, I. P. C. and Section 19 (e), Arms Act. Each one of them was sentenced to eight years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- under Section 395/397, I. P. C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 19 (e), Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently.Against their conviction and sentence, the four accused persons named above preferred appeals from the Jail which were dismissed by this Court on 27-4-1953. Now these four persons have filed petitions for permission to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In these petitions I have heard the four petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. As ail the four petitions arise out of one case, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by one judgment which will govern all of them.2. It...
Umed Khan Hazari Khan Vs. the State of Ajmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-25-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ223
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Umed Khan was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer. A reference to this Court for confirmation of the sentence of death was accepted by me on 22-5-1953. Now Umed Khan has filed this petition for permission to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the petition, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.2. The case does not fall under Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 134(1). The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case is a fit one for appeal as it involves the interpretation of the words 'undue advantage' used in Exception 4 of Section 300, I. P. C. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the question as to what is 'undue advantage' in each particular case is a question of fact and no question of law is involved. To this the learned Counsel for the petitioner has nothing to say.3. No other point has been pressed before sine.4. I, therefore, do not consider it a fit...
Kalyan Lal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Raj250
ORDERDave, J.1. This reference comes on the report of the Sessions Judge, Kotah, dated 4-12-1952.2. The facts leading to the reference are that on 20-6-1952, Kalyan Lal accused was plying a motor bus No. B. J. G. 74 from Bundi to Kotah, He was checked by a traffic constable, Tika Ram. On investigation it was found that he was making a second trip in contravention of the conditions of the permit, whereby only one transport motor bus could make one trip from Bundi to Kotah and vice versa during the course of one day. The accused was challaned in the Court of the City Magistrate, who transferred the case to the Additional City Magistrate. The accused admitted all the facts alleged by the prosecution, and the trial Court thereupon convicted him under Section 123, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-.3. The applicant filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Kotah. There it was urged by his advocate that the trial Court was not justified in convictin...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›