Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1957CriLJ243
Ranawat, J. 1. This is a criminal reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Bundi, dated the 29th January, 1955.2. A case under Section 395, I. P, C., is pending inquiry in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bundi, on a police report. One of the accused, namely, Narendra Singh was also an accused in that case. but he was shown as absconding by the police and he appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate subsequently, A test identification was then arranged and the prosecution witnesses failed to identify him.Thereafter, the prosecution moved the Magistrate for arranging another identification parade on the ground that in the previous proceedings the faces of the accused were so hid that the witnesses could not possibly identify them. The learned Magistrate turned down the request. The prosecution then moved the District Magistrate who ordered the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to reconduct the identification proceedings for Narendra Singh.The learned District Magistrate assu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj338; 1958CriLJ1540
I.N. Modi, J.1. These are three appeals and are directed against a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pali, by which he acquitted Munnalal and Mohanlal under Section 302 I. P. C. and certain other offences, and convicted Munnalal under Sections 411 & 201, I. P. C. and Mohanlal I under Section 411 and sentenced them to various terms of rigorous imprisonment and fine. Appeal No. 103 of 1953 has been filed by Munnalal from Jail, appeal No. 117 of 1953 by Mohanlal through counsel against their convictions and sentences; and appeal No. 63 has been filed by the State and the contention is that the trial Judge should have convicted both the accused under Section 302 and not acquitted them thereunder. As all the appeals arise out of the same trial we propose to decide them by one judgment.2. The material facts are these. The deceased Bhallaram as also his wife Mst. Godawari are alleged to have been murdered on the night between the 2nd and the 3rd August, 1951. They lived in a house in the town o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1955CriLJ1517
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are four applications for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 220 ol the Constitution, and arise in the following circumstances.2. The four applicants were detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Pali, on 4-8-1954. They were supplied with detailed grounds running into three typed pages in support of the order of detention. The matter was placed before the Advi- sory Board in due course, and the Advisory Board advised continued detention of the applicants and, thereafter, the order of detention for a period of one year was confirmed by the Government. The present applications were made almost three months later, and the main ground that has been urged in support of them is that the applicants had requested the Advisory Board to allow them or their counsel to appear before the Board and be heard and that the Board neither heard the applicants' counsel nor the applicants themselves. Reliance in this connection was placed on a decision of this Court in writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj25
Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by theplaintiff Roshanlal, an advocate of this Court,against the judgment of the District Judge, Udaipur, dated 18-5-1953, in a suit for recovery ofcertain fees agreed between him and the defendant. 2. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows. It is alleged that on 25-8-1950, Bhuramal defendant who is a contractor of means met the plaintiff in the court premises at Udaipur and told' the latter that he wanted to institutea, suit against his son Hareshai and nephew Birdichand for a sum of Rs. 53,000/- and had tried to contact him more than once but was unsuccessful.An appointment was arranged between the parties and the plaintiff's case is that on 26-8-1950, Bhuramal executed a document Ex. P-1 in favour of Roshanlal, in which he stated that he had engaged the said advocate to conduct the case filed against his son Harsahai and nephew Birdichand along with another advocate Mr. Trivedi and that his remuneration for the entire case was settled at Rs....
Tag this Judgment!