Rajasthan Court February 1954 Judgments
Taj Khan Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1956Raj37; 1956CriLJ269
ORDERModi, J.1. This is an application in revision by the accused Taj Khan against an order of the Special Judge, Udaipur, by which he framed acharge against the petitioner under Section 161 read with Section 116. Penal Code.2. The facts of the case out of which the revision arises may shortly be stated as follows. On 10-1-1952, it is alleged that the accused offered a bribe of Rs. 500/- to the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Udaipur, with a view to gain his favour in an assessment case relating to the petitioner pending before the said officer. The latter, made a telephonic report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur, who caused an investigation to be made, and it appears that the accused was caught almost red-handed.The accused was challaned in the court of the special Judge under Section 161 read with Section 116, I. P. C. The learned Judge after recording the evidence produced by the prosecution has framed a charge against him under the aforesaid sections. This revision h...
Tag this Judgment!Rewa Chand Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Raj113; 1955CriLJ1106
Bapna, J.1. This is a revision by the accused against an order of the Special Judge, Jaipur City, dated 7-8-1953.2. The petitioner was a Field Inspector in the Department of the Deputy Custodian, Jaipur. He is being prosecuted for an offence Under Section 161, Penal Code read with Section 4, Prevention of Corruption Act in the Court of the Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Jaipur. The challan mentioned eight witnesses to be examined in support of the prosecution, and after examining certain witnesses, a charge was framed against the accused on 10-12-1952. The prosecution witnesses were then cross-examined, and the Public Prosecutor made an application on 23-7-1953, that Shri Trilochan Datt, who, as Deputy Custodian, had sanctioned the prosecution of the accused may be summoned as a witness for the prosecution. The learned Special Judge accepted the. prayer, and directed summons to be issued.3. In this revision it is contended that a new witness not mentioned in the challan cannot be allo...
Tag this Judgment!Assandas and anr. Vs. Nathirmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1234
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. This is a reference by the leaning Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the second complaint preferred by Nathirmal against Assandas be dismissed. In the reference, I have heard the learned Counsel for Assandas, I have heard Nathirmal who is present in person. The Public Prosecutor has not put in his appearance on behalf of the State.2. It appears that on 3-6-1953 Nathirmal filed a complaint against Assandas under Section 500, I.P.C. in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate, Ajmer. This complaint was not disposed of till 8-7-1953. On 4-7-1953 Nathirmal presented another complaint in the Court of the City Magistrate against Assandas and Tilokchand Gopaldas under Sections 499 and 500, I.P.C. It is not disputed that so far as Assandas is concerned the second complaint is on the same facts as the first.3. As the complaint against Assandas was still pending on 4-7-1953, when the second complaint was preferred, the second complaint could not be proceeded with and...
Tag this Judgment!Har Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj189
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner, Har Prasad, was employed as Head Travelling Ticket Examiner (Head T. T. E.) and was directed by his superior officer D. T. S.Bandikui, to appear before the District Medical Officer (D. M. O.), Bandikui, for periodical eyesight examination. The D. M. O., after examination, referred Mr. Har Prasad to the Chief Medical Officer (C. M. O.), who declared Mr. Har Prasad as unfit owing to defective eye-sight. Mr. Har Prasad was then ordered by the Chief Traffic Inspector (C. T. I.), Bandikui, to rejoin on the expiry of his leave as Head Ticket Collector at Jaipur on the 2nd of November, 1950. The petitioner filed an appeal to the D. T. S., Bandikui, T. S. Ajmer, C. T. M., Bombay, and General Manager, Bombay. As a result of these representations, he was asked to appear again before the Chief Medical Officer, Bombay, on 8-3-1951. The C. M. O. maintained his earlier opinion and nothing came out of the...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Sukhlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Raj178; 1955CriLJ1395
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur and arises under the following circumstances.2. When the first prosecution witness was being examined before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, one of the assessors namely Shri Faqir Chand presented an application before him that he was interested in the accused Ram Narain as this accused was his debtor, and ho was unable to give any opinion in this case and that he would not sit as an assessor during the course of the trial of the case against Ram Narain. Ram Narain accused also admitted that Shri Faqir Chand was his creditor for the last two or three years and that he was having very good relations with the assessor.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur thinks that under the circumstances, Shri Faqir' Chand was not a proper person to act as an assessor in the case and has therefore, made a reference to this Court recommending that the order of appointment of Shri Faqir Chand as asse...
Tag this Judgment!Shri NaraIn Vs. the Administrator Municipal Committee
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1006
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. The Municipal Committee, Ajmer, presented a requisition under Section 234 of Municipal Regulation No. VI of 1925 seeking to realize a sum of Rs. 476/6/- from Shri Narain of Mohalla Nagra, Ajmer in respect of property No. XV/ 2095. A notice was issued to the opposite party and he filed a written objection. When examined by the Magistrate, the opposite party admitted ownership of the property and also receipt of the demand notice. Thereupon the learned Magistrate overruling the objection that a second application would not lie, directed the opposite party to pay the sum within three days failing which a distress warrant would be issued for realizing the same. Against that order, a revision application was filed in the court of the District Magistrate, but was unsuccessful. Now Shri Narain, the opposite party, has come up in revision to this Court. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the Municipal Committee.2. The first point u...
Tag this Judgment!Tej Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj204
Bapna, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 31st July, 1953.2. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Amer 'A' Constituency in the last General Elections held in January-February, 1952. Respondent No. 3, Lallu Chand, was also a candidate for election from the same constituency, but his nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer. Lallu Chand filed an election petition, which was referred by the Election Commission to the Election Tribunal, Jaipur, which is respondent No. 1. The Election Tribunal, after enquiry gave its decision on the 31st of July, 1953, that the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 was improperly rejected, and such rejection had adversely affected the election.3. It was alleged that the Election Tribunal was not properly constituted, as Mr. P.L. Shome was not an advocate of the Rajasthan High...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›