Rajasthan Court February 1965 Judgments
State Vs. Bhanwaria
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Raj191; 1965CriLJ673
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Begu (Chittorgarh) dated 19th March, 1963 acquitting the respondent Bhanwaria Bhil of Sukhpura of an offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case was that just before midnight intervening 11th December, 1962 and 12th December, 1962 the accused respondent entered the house of Jetia with an intent to commit the offence of theft. On account of his entry the oxen in the house of Jetia made some movements causing noise and there was also some noise on account of the rattling of the utensils. Balu, the nephew of Jetia heard the noise and he closed the door of Jetia's house from outside by bolting. It may be mentioned here that Jetia was not at his house, he having gone to some other place for kirtan, leaving behind his wife Sevu alone. Balu after closing the door went to inform Jetia. Jetia came to his house and opened the door from outside and found the accused inside...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Nandkishore and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj228; 1967CriLJ1369
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. Since these two appeals by the State raise a common question of law, they are being disposed of by this one judgment. 2. In appeal No. 666 of 1963, respondent Nandkishore was prosecuted under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the respondent while driving truck No. RJA 165 rashly and negligently caused injuries with it to a cow which fell down on the ground and died two days after. Since the case was instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate first Class Rajgarh adopted the procedure as is provided under Section 251 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A charge was framed against the accused on 19th October, 1962. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was fixed for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 4-12-1962, 15-1-63, 12/3/1963 and 19/3/1963, but the prosecution failed to produce any witness. The learned Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence and observed that there was no duty of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Bhuti Vs. Bhanwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1965
Reported in: 1965CriLJ702
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Mst. Bhuti against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in ordering delivery of an ingot of gold weighing 55 1/4 tolas to Bhanwarlal opposite party.2. Briefly the facts giving rise to these proceedings are that a theft took place in one of the rooms of the petitioner's house, situate in the city of Bikaner during her absence. On her return from Calcutta on 10th September, 1960 when she opened the room, she found that all the ornaments which she had kept in an almirah had been stolen. The matter was reported to the police on 12th September, 1960 and a list of the stolen property was also submitted along with the report. Excepting the room from which ornaments had been stolen the remaining portion of the house was in possession of Madhodass as a tenant. Madhodass was suspected of having committed theft and so be was arrested and on his information two gold Naths were recovered from his possession. Madhodass also n...
Tag this Judgment!Lalchand Jalamchand Vs. Sales-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj18; [1966]17STC235(Raj)
Beri, J.1. By an order of this Court dated the 2nd May, 1958, the Commissioner of Sales-tax Rajasthan was directed to refer a question of law under Section 15 (3) of the Rajasthan Sale-tax Act (Act No. 29 of 1954) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and it is thus that this reference comes for opinion.2. M/s. Lalchand Jalamchand of Bikaner (hereinafter called 'the assessee') were assessed for the assessment year 1956-57 on a turnover determined at the figure of Rs. 96,992/9/9. It raised a tax liability in the sum of Rs. 12,114/1 against the assessee which they disputed on the ground that they had merely imported hydrogenated vegetable and edible oils which were sold by their commission agents M/s. Pirdan Prem Chand of Bikaner (hereinafter called 'the Commission Agent'). The assessee claimed to be not liable because they made no sales and for the commission agent it was contended that they stood exempted from payment of sales-tax as they had deposited the requisite fee in the sum of Rs. 500...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›