Rajasthan Court January 1955 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.
Sardar Kulwant Singh and ors. Vs. Appellate Authority of State Transpo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj237
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, invited applications for certain routes by a notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette of 5-1-1952, and again on 14-3-1953. One of the routes, for which applications for stage carriage were invited, was the Jaipur-Gangapur route 96 persons applied for stage carriage permits on this route.The Regional Transport Authority by its resolution dated 6-8-1953, granted 19 permits to 17 persons, and rejected the rest of the applications. Duli Chand, Anand Ram Kabra, Amiruddin, Maya Betwal, Mahadeo Ghanshyam, and Bansilal Govind Sahai filed six separate appeals to the Appellate Authority under Section 64, Clause (a), Motor Vehicles Act, urging that the refusal of permits to them by the Regional Transport Authority was erroneous, and that a permit for one stage carriage should be granted to each one of them.By two judgments of 8-5-1954, all the six appeals were a...
Jethiya and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1955
Reported in: 1955CriLJ1285
Dave, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 26-7-1954 whereby the appellants Jethiya and Motiya have been convicted Under Sections 392 and 323 respectively. Jethiya has been sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment while Motiya has beea awarded 6 months' rigorous imprisonments2. The prosecution case against the appellants was that on the morning of 21-11-1951, one Khiya son of Raju Vishnoi resident of Matora was going home from Pokarwali Nudi. At that time, three persons viz., the two appellants and one NawaHa beat him with lathis saying that he was grazing his cattle in the field of Kirta jat. It was further alleged against them that alter Khiya had fallen on the ground, Motiya appellant caught hold of his hands and Jethiya and Navalia removed the tw6 golden Murkis which he was wearing in his ears. Motiya appellant also snatched from nis possession one Bhakla and then all the three appellants ran away from that place because two persons Kan...
Bhimsingh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1955
Reported in: 1955CriLJ992
Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by Bhimsingh accused who has been convicted by the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) Bharatpur Under Section 165A, Penal Code, and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30/-2. The circumstances under which the prosecution was started against the appellant are said to be that the appellant presented an application Ex. PI before the Sub-Tahsildar Kumher for help of the police in preventing the intervention of one Chitar in the cultivation of a certain field in village Pachmoor, sub-Tehsil Kurnher, District Bharatpur which according to the appellant had been in his cultivatory possession for sometime past. This application was presented in the Sub-Tehsil, Kumher on the 13-8-1953 and it was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharatpur with a recommendation that the appellant be granted relief prayed for by him. The application came up before Mr. P. S. Saxena, Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bharatp...
The State Vs. Bachan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Bachan Singh was found guilty of an offence under Section 33(f) of the Excise Regulation 1 of 1915 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- with l1/2 months rigorous imprisonment in default. Against his conviction and sentence he tiled an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge who reduced the fine to Rs. 25/- only but maintained the conviction. Now the State has come up in revision seeking; an enhancement of the sentence imposed on Bachan Singh. In this revision, I have heard the learned Counsel for Bachan Singh and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the accused is that the conviction cannot be maintained. It is urged that the whole trial is vitiated inasmuch as the learned Magistrate did not properly explain the ingredients of the offence and did not himself record the statement of the accused. The learned Counsel has referred me to - 'Ladu v. Phul Chanel 1937 AMLJ 140 (A) and Fateh Chand v. Munna Lal', 1938 AMLJ 17 (B...
Sukh Lal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Raj1; 1955CriLJ1394; AIR 1955 Raj 177
ORDERModi, J.1. This is an application Under Section 215, Cr.PC by the petitioner Sukhlal, and has arisen under the following circumstances.2. The present petitioner, along with one other person with whom we are not concerned for the purposes of the present revision, has been committed by the Extra Magistrate, Banswara, to stand his trial Under Section 302 read with Section 109, Penal Code in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. This application has been filed on his behalf for quashing the order of commitment, mainly, on the ground that there is no evidence, worth the name on the basis of which the Magistrate could have committed the accused.3. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the petitioner should have submitted his application in the first instance before the learned Sessions Judge concerned, and then come up to this Court, and that as this has not been done, this Court should refuse to go into the merits of this appl...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›