Rajasthan Court March 1956 Judgments
Ramratan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj196; 1956CriLJ1432
Ranawat, J.1. This is a criminal appeal by Ram Ratan, Ganpat and Harbilas, against the judgment of the Additional] Sessions Judge of Dholpur, dated 21-4-1955, convicting the accused-appellants under Sections 302 and 307 both read with Section 34, Penal Code, and sentencing them each to transportation for life and a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default 6 months' further rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., and to 7 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 200/- or in default 4 months' further R. I. under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that Pyare, brother of the three accused-appellants, was murdered about one year before the date of occurrence in this case, and a case against Daryav, Bidha and others is pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dholpur. The relations of Daryav, Bidha and others with Ram Ratan and his family were strained on account of the murder of Pyare...
Tag this Judgment!Malik Ram and anr. Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj142
Wanchoo, C.J.1. The following three points have been referred to this Full Bench for answer:1. Whether the following condition laid down by Section 47 (1) (c), Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 is ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: 'the effect upon those services of the service proposed.' 2. Whether in view of Rule 90, Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, the Transport Authority is under a duty to so fix the time table as to allow every stage carriage holding a permit on a particular route to run thereon daily, and whether the fixing of a time table and allowing the stage carriages to run by rotation on some days of the month only is in contravention of the said Rules? 3. Whether granting of a few more permits on a route on which the existing stage carriages are not running daily but only by rotation is by itself sufficient to justify this Court to quash the order of Regional Transport or Appellate Authority bya writ of certiorari on the ground of the order being erro...
Tag this Judgment!Kishorelal Vs. Surajmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj164
Dave, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in a money suit and arises in the following circumstances :2. The plaintiff-respondent Surajmal filed a money suit for Rs. 781/4/- in the court of Munsif, Hanumangarh on 10-11-1952. it was based on a bond alleged to have been executed by the appellant on 10-11-1949. Thus, it would appear that the plaint was presented just a day before the period of limitation was to expire. The plaintiff affixed court-fee stamps of Rs. 1/4/- only although the proper court-fees reported by the office on that day was Rs. 79/-.On the date of presentation of this plaint there was no Munsif at Hanumangar and, therefore, the office kept the matter pending till the arrival of the Presiding Officer. It appears that this case was later on transferred by the District Judge, Ganganagar to the court of the Civil Judge, Suratgarh where it was registered on 18-4-1953.The Civil Judge then issued notice to the plaintiff and his counsel to 'make up the deficiency in c...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Dev Cheema Vs. Additional Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj193
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Satya Dev Cheema under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order prohibiting the Additional Deputy Custodian Bharatpur from proceeding against the applicant in an evacuee property matter.2. The case of the applicant is that he was given agricultural land measuring 353 bighas and 4 biswas in village Kaproli, Tehsil Bharatpur, under the orders of the Ruler of the former State of Bharatpur, on 25-12-1947, on payment of Nazrana, and the applicant got possession of the land.In June, 1950 the land was declared evacuee property. The applicant brought that matter to this Court by Writ Petition No. 66 of 1951, when he failed to get redress from the Custodian Evacuee Property, Rajasthan. That petition was accepted, and the order declaring the land evacuee property was set said, and the Assistant Custodian was directed to proceed according to law under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 31 of 1950 (hereinafter called the Act)....
Tag this Judgment!Jaman Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ232
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a revision against an order of conviction of the petitioners Jaman Singh and Manohar Singh under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code made by the learned Extra Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana, dated 15th June, 1954, The accused petitioners were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each. The appeal by the accused was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, by judgment dated 23rd March, 1955.2. The case for the prosecution is disclosed by the evidence of P. W. 1, Roor Singh, who stated that on 29th November, 1946, the witness and Nathia went to Kothi Debaraweli and while they were returning, the accused Jaman Singh and Manohar Singh accompanied by several others, met them, in the way and shot at them with the result that Roor Singh was injured by a gun shot on the right hand and Nathia was injured by another gun-shot on his right hand.The accused denied the charge and said that they were themselves the subject of an assault by guns by Roor Singh and his comp...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Motilal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Raj63; 1957CriLJ230
Ranawat, J.1. This is an appeal by the State under Section 417 of the Criminal P. C. against an order of acquittal passed by the City Magistrate of Bundi on 21-11-1953,2. The police challaned Motilal, Manager of the Mitra Bahudhandi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Bundi, and Ramchander, driver of the Bus No. RJG 134 to the Court of the City Magistrate, Bundi, on the allegation that when the said bus was checked on 11-7-1353, on Bundi-Nainwa Road, it was found that the driver had no permit for plying the vehicle on that road. The bus, it is said, belongs to the aforesaid Samiti of which Motilal is the manager. A case under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Motor Venicles Act of 1939 was challaned against both the accused persons.The learned City Magistrate held that Motilal being the Manager of the Samiti could not be held liable under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act as Section 42 covered the case of an owner of a motor vehicle only and Section 123 was not wide eno...
Tag this Judgment!Dhoolchand and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ233
ORDERBapna, J.1. This is a revision by Dhoolchand and Narain Das who have been convicted under Section 379, I. P. C., by the learned. City Magistrate, Tonk, by judgment dated the 16th August, 1952, and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each. On appeal the sentence of imprisonment was remitted.2. The case for the prosecution is that the accused committed theft of electricity. Learned Counsel for the applicants has raised an objection that under Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act no prosecution can be launched except at the instance of the Government or an Electric Inspector or of a person aggrieved by the offence.Dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electrical energy has been made an offence of theft by Section 39 of the Electricity Act. There is no doubt that prosecution for theft of electrical energy cannot be launched except in accordance with Section 50 of the Electricity Act. In the present case what happened was that Ram Bilas, wire...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Bhimsingh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ100
Modi, J. 1. This is a petition by Thakur Bhimsingh under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus against his detention under the Preventive Detention Act. 2. The petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate Pali dated 7-1-1956, passed under Section 3, preventive Detention Act, 4 of 1950 as amended from time to time with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintaining of public order. He was actually arrested on 30-1-1956, and is under detention in the Central Prison, Jaipur. He was furnished with the grounds of his detention on 7-2-1956, and it appears that the grounds of detention were drawn up for the first time on 3-2-1956,long after his detention was ordered by the District Magistrate on 7-1-1956. 3. The petitioner's case is that he helped Maharajadhiraj Shri Ajitsingh who stood against , Shri Gokulbhai Bhatta Congress candidate in the Parliamentary election in the last general elect...
Tag this Judgment!Bherulal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj161
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by bhurulal against the State of Rajasthan and Itfangalram, praying for an order in the nature of prohibition in connection with certain dues which are being realized from the applicant as royaity.2. The facts, which have led to this application, are these -- The applicant is a stone merchant, and purchases building stone from quarrymen of different quarries situate in Tahsil Nimbahera in district Chittorgarh. Thereafter, he sells these stones either in Nimbahera itself or in other parts of Rajasthan, and even beyond Rajasthan, Mangalram is a contractor appointed by the State of Rajasthan for collecting wnat is called royalty in connection with these quarries. Mangalram. holds a contract from the State of Rajasthan for this purpose as he offered the highest bid of Rs. 39,251/- for collection of royalty.According to the contract entered into between Mangalram and the State of Rajasthan, he is authorised to coll...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath Vs. Gulabkanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Raj174
Modi, J. This is an appeal by the defendant Bhagirath in a suit brought against him by the plaintiff Mst. Gulab Kanwar on behalf of herself and her sons Sampatchand and Suratsingh who are minors. The suit was principally based upon a promissory note and has been decreed with respect to it by the Senior Civil Judge Jodhpur but the rest of their claim stands dismissed.2. The case disclosed by the plaintiffs is that there were money dealings between Nauratanmal deceased, grandfather of the minor plaintiffs, and the defendant, and the latter had also taken certain kothas on rent from the deceased and was in occupation thereof.It is said that after the death of Nuratanmal,on 15-10-1951, accounts were gone into between theparties on Migsar Sudi 15 Smt. 2008 (correspondingto the I3th December, 1951) and a sum of Rs. 9708/7/- was found due against the defendant. Thelatter expressed his inability to repay the amountfound due.Thereupon the old khata was squared up, a sum of Rs. 8/7/- was paid in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »