Rajasthan Court September 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.
Gondasingh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ240
ORDERDave, J.1. This is an appeal by four accused namely Gondasingh, Ditasingh, Ajmersingh I S/o Bhagsingh and Ajmersingh II s/o Hazurasingh against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, dated the 20th of October, 1954, The first two appellants, namely Gondasingh and Ditasingh have been sentenced under Section 326 while the two Ajmersinghs have been convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Gondasingh has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and the rest to six years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution story against the appellants was that there was previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased Hakimsingh. All the appellants and the deceased are residents of village Chandra. Sometime before the present occurrence, there was a quarrel between the party of the deceased Hakimsingh and the party of Ditasingh appellant and in that quarrel, one Karnailsingh of Ditsingh's party was murdered.The deceased Hakim...
Bherumal Vs. Motumal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1140
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. In criminal case No. 106 of 1954, a complaint under Sections 420/109, Penal Code was filed by Bherumal against Motumal and Pessumal. The accused persons were permitted to appear through counsel. The counsel was absent on 24-1-1955, the date fixed though he had signed the order-sheet dated 19-1-1955 fixing 24-1-1955 for orders in an application. The learned Magistrate thereupon forfeited the bonds furnished by the accused persons.No notice calling upon the persons bound by the bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid was issued. Without any such proceedings, the learned City Magistrate, who had recalled the case to his own file, on 17-5-1955 vacated the order regarding the for. feiture of the bail-bonds. Now the learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to this Court suggesting that this order be set aside.2. In the reference, Bherumal's learned Counsel appears to support it. Shri Arjan Das appears for the two accused persons. Th...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. Sansmal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj18
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Kanhaiyalal decree-holder against the order of the Civil Judge Sojat, setting: aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 84 on the ground that the decree-holder auction purchaser had not deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase money as required by Order 21, Rule 84 (1), C. P. C.2. The facts are that certain property was ordered to be sold and 25-5-1953, was fixed for the sale. On that day, the decree-holder applied to the executing court for permission to bid at the auction, and also prayed that the amount realized by sale be set-off towards his decree, the court passed an order on this application in the following terms:,'The decree-holder is permitted to bid at the sale'.Nothing was said about the other prayer made by the decree-holder namely that the purchase money be set-off towards his decree.3. The sale took place on the 25th of May, and the decree-holder's' bid was the highest. The sale was apparently knocked down in his favour, but he did not deposi...
Ramjiwan Ramnath Vs. Roopchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj1
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Messrs. Ramjiwan Ramnath against the order of the Civil Judge, Merta, dismissing the application filed by the appellant against ROOP Chand and others for execution of a decree obtained by them against the respondents from the Calcutta High Court, on the ground that execution was barred by limitation, and there had been no revivor as contemplated by Article 183 Limitation Act.2. The facts are that the appellant obtained a decree against Chhogmal and his sons Roop Chand and others, who are respondents in the present appeal, from the Calcutta High Court on 3-2-1938. The appellant got this decree transferred to Aligarh in 1949, and applied for execution by arrest of Chhogmal, judgment-debtor, in December 1949. The proceedings in the Aligarh Court are said to have come to an end sometimes in 1950. Thereafter the appellant got the decree transferred to the Court at Merta and applied for execution.3. The execution of the decree was objected to by the judg...
State Vs. Indraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj234; 1957CriLJ907
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Indraj by a Magistrate of the First Class of an offence under Section 454 of the I. P. C.2. The prosecution case was briefly this. Shivkaran and his family lived in Nangal Bari. He and members of his family had gone out to their fields on the morning of 29-9-1952 and had shut up the house. When they returned in the evening, they found, that the floor of the house was open and that the lock of an almirah inside the house had been broken. The almirah contained Rs. 350/- in currency notes and a tin-box containing gold and silver ornaments. The money as well as the box of ornaments were found missing. It was also stated in the first report that the house of the accused Indraj was next door and that the accused knew that the money and ornaments were in that almirah. Suspicion was expressed against Indraj on the further ground that he was a gambler. It was also explained that there was delay in the report as they were tr...
The State Vs. Dharamveer Kalia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Raj236; 1957CriLJ910
Wanchoo, C.J.(1) This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Dharamveer Kalia of an offence under Section 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act (No. 17) of 1933.(2) The facts of the case are not in dispute, One Bulidansingh, who was once upon a time a dealer, had three radio sets for which he had a license as an owner. It seems that there was a talk about the purchase of one of these sets between him and the accused Dharamveer Kalia. Consequently, one of the sets covered by the license was taken from the house of Buildansingh, and installed at the house of Dharamveer Kalia for a period of 10 days in October, 1952. This was done in order that Kalia might have a trial of the set, and decide for himself whether it was worthwhile purchasing it.While the set was at the house of Kalia, the fact was found out, and thereafter a report was made by the Town Inspector that Kalia was in possession of a ratio set without a license. It may be mentioned that Kalia was given an opportuni...
Mohmmad Jamil and anr. Vs. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj125
Bapna, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226, Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are assignees of a permit granted by the R. T. A., Udaipur, for running a stage carriage on Baran-Chhipabarod-Chhabra route. They applied to the R. T. A. for curtailment of the route beyond Chhipabarod on the allegation that there was no motorable road from Chhipabarod to Chhabra.The R. T. A. on 25-5-1954, recorded 3 resolution that the application for curtailment had been duly notified, but no objection had been received and, therefore, it was resolved that curtailment be sanctioned. The Kotah Transport Ltd. filed an appeal before the S. T. A., & the S. T. A. found that an objection had, as a matter of fact, been filed before the R. T. A. by the Kotah Transport Ltd., & that the R. T. A, had committed error in not deciding that objection.An attempt was made by the Secretary R. T. A. to explain that 'the document submitted by the Kotah Transport Limited was not considered as an objection, because ...
Bhuralal Vs. Jiwansingh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj21
Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor Bhuralal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bhilwara, dated 3-3-1952, arising out of certain execution proceedings.2. The respondent Jiwansingh and his brother Sohansingh (who is represented in this appeal by his assignee Motisingh) filed a suit against the appellant for redemption of a pledge of certain ornaments and obtained a decree on 28-8-1940, that they would be entitled to redeem the ornaments on payment of Rs. 547/4/- to the defendant. This decree was confirmed on appeal. On 30-1-1943, Sohansingh alone applied for execution of the decree.Some trouble arose as Jiwansingh had not been made a party to the application for execution and, therefore, on 9-5-1943, Sohansingh stated that he was asking for execution with respect to his share of the decree. In 6-2-1945, the Judgment-debtor objected that he had already compromised the decree with one of the decree-holders Jiwansingh on 20-5-1941. This objection was not...
Rajvi Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj104
Bapna, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was a District and Sessions Judge in the former Bikaner State for some years prior to the formation of the United State of Rajas-than by the covenant dated 30-3-1949, entered into by the various rulers including the Maharaja of Bikaner. Some time after the formation of Rajasthan provisional postings were made on an 'ad hoc' basis by Government Order No. F-l (12) Int. B/50, dated 25-5-1950, and the petitioner was provisionally posted as Civil and Additional Sessions Judge of Jhunjhunu. The Government notification of the said postings mentioned in para. 6 that all the appointments were provisional, and that the emoluments of none of the officers appointed were being affected, and they would continue to draw their existing salaries until further orders. It was declared that all the appointments were without prejudice to the creation of Judicial Service in Rajasthan to be formed in accordance ...
State Vs. Ramkishan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Raj24
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Ramkishan of an offence under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The accused is the proprietor of Grand Hotel, Jodhpur. One Mahendra Singh came and stayed at, the Hotel. When he was leaving, he wag short of money and could not pay the bill that he had run up at the Hotel. Consequently Mahendra Singh left his pistol with the accused, and executed a document Ex. P3 by which he pledged this pistol as a security for the sum of Rs. 300/7/- which he owed to the grand Hotel.He agreed that the money would be paid within a fortnight together with interest. It was also agreed that if the money was not paid within the, time-limit, the Hotel would have the right to recover the amount by selling the pistol. On 23-3-1952, the pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused by the police on the basis, of some information received from Bombay. Thereafter, the accused was prosecuted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »