Rajasthan Court June 1959 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.
Devi Singh and anr. Vs. Shiv Ram Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj150; 1960CriLJ853
ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. This reference comes on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated 28-11-1958.2. The facts giving rise to it are that the District Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, issued a warrant on 22-3-1958, under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (No. 48 of 1949). It was stated in the warrant that the Superintendent of Police had received credible information and that he was led to believe that the house of one Hira Sunar situated near Dal Bazar, Bharatpur, was used as a common gaming house. He, therefore, authorized Shri Shiv Ram Singh, Station House Officer, Bharatpur, to search the said house and to take into custody persons, who may be found therein, whether actually gaming or not, and also to seize the instruments of gaming, money, etc. The prosecution story is that on the basis of this warrant Shri Shiv Ram Singh raided Hira Sunar's house and thereafter the two accused Devisingh and Hukma were prosecuted in the Court of the Ci...
Amolak Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Raj220; 1961CriLJ556
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. This is a revision by the petitioner Amolak and raises an interesting question relating to the interpretation of the newly enacted Section 479-A of the Code o Criminal Procedure,2. The facts, out of which this revision arises, may be very shortly stated.3. In Criminal case No. 21 of 1957 Harisingh and four others were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 302/149 I. P. C. and certain other sections for causing the death of one Hari Ram and grievous injuries to his son Mangla. By his judgment dated the 26th of August 1958, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, acquitted the accused, having come to the finding that whatever injuries were caused to the deceased and his son, were so caused by the two accused Hari Singh and Madho in the exercise of their right of private defence of person,The petitioner Amolak was one of the three eyewitness in that case. On the 5th of December, 1958, an application was moved on behalf of the State that the said Amolak had...
Ram Lal Vs. Mangu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj216; 1960CriLJ1138
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. (In Chambers) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and arises under the following circumstances. The question raised by the reference is whether after the trial Magistrate has dropped the proceedings under Sub-section (5) of Section 145, he has the authority or jurisdiction to order that the property which was the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Magistrate be returned to a particular party.2. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to appreciate the point in controversy. The dispute relates to 30 Bighas of agricultural land attached to a well called Chainsing-wali-Kothi in the village Sogra Guwar. The land was entered in the revenue papers as half and half in the names of the petitioner Ramlal and the opposite party Mangu as tenants. The allegations made by the Station House Officer Khetri at whose instance this proceeding was started before the Sub-Divisional Mag...
Ghisa and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Raj294; 1959CriLJ1476
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, recommending that the order of commitment of the Munsiff Magistrate, First Class,Malpura dated 16-12-1957 committing the accused Gheesa and seven others under Sections 307, 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. be set aside.2. According to the challan, there were eleven eye-witnesses of the incident out of which the prosecution produced only five such witnesses. The remaining eye-witnesses were neither produced by the prosecution, nor were examined by the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is of the opinion that under Section 207-A, Sub-section (4), it was the duty of the committing Magistrate to take the evidence of all the eyewitnesses and as admittedly he failed to do so, the commitment order was bad and illegal.He has therefore recommended that the committing order be set aside and the case be remanded to the committing Magistrate with a direction to examine all the witnesses to the actual comm...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›