Rajasthan Court October 1965 Judgments
Ramdutt and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ584
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Ram Dutt and 13 others against the order of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Jalore dated 5th May, 1964 in a complaint case under Sections 384, 147 and 427 Indian Penal Code.2. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused, who were 18 in number formed an unlawful assembly on 20th January, 1962 and in prosecution of their common object removed the complainant's 'Bada' and thatch and also dishonestly took away a number of articles including a cow. Amongst the accused Ram Dutt is Sarpanch, Mishrilal an Up-Sarpanch and Sukhraj, Thaniya and Gajra are Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, Umedabad. Some of these accused urged before the trial Magistrate that their prosecution without the previous sanction of the State was barred in view of the provisions of Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code. It was urged that the 'Bada' in dispute was removed by them in the discharge of their official duty.It was pointed out that the resolution ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj10; 1967CriLJ121
I.N. Modi, J.1. Accused Ganpalsingh has been convicted of an offence under Section 161 I.P.C and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 100/ and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, by the learned Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur by his judgment dated the 31st August, 1964. He now appeals.2. The case for the prosecution may shortly be stated as follows The accused Ganpatsingh was Head Constable in charge of the police outpost Asalpur within the jurisdiction of police station Phulera, On the 30th September, 1961, there was a quarrel between Nanu P.W. 2 son of Bhima D W on the one side and Lalaram P.W. 6 on the other. Both Nanu and Lalaram are residents of GudaBerisalsingh. On the 1st October, 1961, at 12 mid-day. Bhima and his son Nanu filed a report Ex. P-8 at the police outpost Asalpur in which it was complained that there was a quarrel betw...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoori Lal Vs. Gehri Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj22
Kan Singh, J.1. I have before me two second appeals of identical nature filed by an unsuccessful defendant in an action for realisation of rent of a shop. As the fate of these appeals falls to be determined on a common question of law, they can conveniently he disposed of together.2. Gehrilal and Inderlal were the owners of the shop in dispute. On 31-7-41 they mortgaged it with possession for an amount of Rs. 2,699 with one Ismail and Sadiq Hussain. The latter gave it on lease to the mortgagors Gehrilal and Inderlal on a monthly rent Rs. 11 on 16-8-44. Gehrilal and Inderlal in turn sublet it on 3-4-49 to the defendant Bhoori Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 60. On 12-9-59 mortgagors Ismail and Sadiq Hussain sub-mortgaged it with Bhoori Lal the defendant who was already holding it on sub-lease from Gehri Lal and Inderlal. On 12-1-59. Bhoorilal filed a suit for the recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,160 from Gehrilal in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur. Subseq...
Tag this Judgment!Krantichand Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj100
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. Petitioner Krantichand holds a whole-sale licence to deal in food grains issued under the Food Grains Licencing Order, 1964 promulgated under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act).2. It is said that he committed an offence under Section 7 of the Act by contravening a condition incorporated in paragraph 9 (3) of the Licence issued to the petitioner on 21st September, 1964. For this contravention the petitioner was challaned in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate. Ajmer on 28th January, 1965.3. On behalf of the petitioner two preliminary objections were taken before the Additional District Magistrate, Ajmer, viz.,1. that he could not he tried summarily under Section 12A of the Act as this provision could not apply to any offence alleged to have been committed prior to 5th November. 1964. 2. that the condition of licence contained in paragraph 9 contravention of which was the ground of charge having been deleted ...
Tag this Judgment!Mubarak HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj14
Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular first appeal by the plaintiff Mubarak Hussain against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur, dated 31st August, 1957, in a suit for refund of money.2. The plaintiffs case is briefly this. The plaintiff Mubarak Hussain (along with two other persons named Bhanwarlal and Kanwalchand, who may be ignored for the purposes of the present appeal as we consider it unnecessary to go into the question whether they were joint monopolists with the plaintiff) obtained a monopoly contract for plying passengers and goods motor service for hire on the Erinpura-Bali route for a period of three years from 15th March, 1949 to 14th March, 1952 from the Board of Communications of the Government of the State of Jodhpur, as it then was on agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 33,101/- for the said monopoly (vide Ex A-1). On the 7th April, 1949, the State of Jodhpur was integrated with the United State of Rajasthan and themonopoly contract was allowed to continue ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›