Skip to content

Rajasthan Court October 1960 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.

Oct 10 1960

Murlidhar and ors. Vs. Shree Krishan

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Oct-10-1960

Reported in: 1961CriLJ404

ORDERD.S. Dave, J.1. This reference comes on the report of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur dated 30th May, 1959.2. The facts giving rise to it are that the non-petitioner in this Court i.e. Shri Shree Krishan presented a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate 1st Class Jodhpur against the petitioner on 20th March, 1957 fox offences under Sections 426, 447, 448 and 379 I.P.C. The Magistrate proceeded to try the case as a warrant case because the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. could be tried only as a warrant case. On the 11th of August, 1958, the complainant was to produce his witnesses.On that date, he was absent and therefore the accused were discharged by the Magistrate under Section 259 Cr. P.C. On the very next day i.e. 112-8-58, the complainant presented a fresh complaint in which he reiterated all the facts and allegations which were narrated by him in his original complaint dated 20th March, 1957. It was further added by him that his case was not shown on...


Oct 06 1960

Radhey Shyam Vs. State

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Oct-06-1960

Reported in: 1961CriLJ430

L.N. Chhangani, J.1. These two appeals - one through Jail and the other through an Advocate - have been filed by Radhey Shyam accused against the same order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District dated the 1st February, 1960. By this order, he has convicted Radhey Shyam of an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and has awarded a sentence of ton years' rigorous imprisonment and a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to two years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts on which the charge was founded are briefly these:3. Kishanlal the complainant who is the injured is a resident of Gudha Katra in Tehsil Bandikui The accused Radheyshyam is a resident of Bandikui, There were some monetary transactions between Kishanlal the complainant and the father of the accused Radheyshyam, Kishanlal had obtained a money decree against Radheyshyam. His application for execution of the decree was pending in a Court at Bandikui. On 25-2-59 the complainant Kishanlal left his village for Bandik...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial