Rajasthan Court May 1967 Judgments
Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj63; 1968CriLJ378
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This revision application by Jogindersingh and four others is directed against the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 14th April, 1966 by which he maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 457 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that on the night of 19th April, 1964 at about 9 or 9.30 p.m., Dharamchand (P. W. 1) and his wife Smt. Kamla (P. W. 5) were sitting in the upper most story of the building situated in Bapu Bazar, Udaipur whose construction work was being looked after by Dharamchand on behalf of Madanlal resident of Nathdawara its owner and they gone upstairs after bolting the door of the staircase from inside. On the ground floor of this building there are two shops Nos. 103 and 104 which had been rented out to petitioner Joginder-singh for the last 4-5 years. It is said that at that time seven or eight persons including the petitioners cli...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Representing Northern Railway Vs. Firm J.P. Sharm ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj99
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act and is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, dated 28-10-1963, whereby the learned Judge awarded a decree of Rs. 4,26,528.90 paise in favour of the respondent and against the appellant on the basis of an award given by Shri S.P. Lal Deputy General Manager, Northern Railway on 12-2-1963 consequent to the dismissal of the objections filed by the appellant against the validity of the award The respondent has also filed a cross-objection and has prayed that interest be awarded on the amount decreed by the District Judge from the date of the decree till the realisation of the decretal amount. The main question that arises for consideration is about the validity of the award and we may briefly state the relevant facts as follows:2. The respondent firm was engaged as contractor by the Northern Railway for the purpose of performing all the work of porterage of goods at the vario...
Tag this Judgment!Chhutanlal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj70; 1968CriLJ385
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This revision application has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. In Jaipur City, Mst. Bhori wife of the petitioner is said to have been murdered on the night intervening 24th and 25th July, 1964 while the petitioner was in jail in regard to some other offence. While investigating the case of murder, the police took in its charge the house in which Mst. Bhori was murdered as also the moveable property then found in the house purporting to act under Section 25 of the Police Act, 1861, (hereinafter called the Act). An inventory of the said property was furnished to the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur who directed the property to remain in police custody. Thereafter the petitioner from jail submitted an application on 3rd December, 1964, to hand over the said property to his second wife Mst. Lilita. This application was addressed to the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Jaipur City who ordered the property to be delivered to Mst. Lilita on 6th January, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Maganbhai Vs. Chetanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj81
D.M. Bhandari, J. 1. This Civil Second Appeal on behalf of the defendant arises out of suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. Initially the suit was filed by Mandirdas Chetan Lal against the defendant alleging that he was the owner of a bungalow known as 'Rajendra Villa' at Mount Abu which the defendant had taken on rent from his Mukhtiar-Am Ramchandra on 18th November, 1957, agreeing to pay rent including Municipal tax of Rs. 768 per annum. The defendant had deposited advance rent of one year. After the expiry of one year, he did not vacate the bungalow On this the plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting Rs. 1, 113-12-0 including Rs. 25-12-0 for expenses of notice served by the said plaintiff on the defendant. The defendant denied that the bungalow belonged to Mandirdas Chetanlal plaintiff. He further said that he had taken the said bungalow on rent from Premchand, son of Ram Chandra agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 768 per mensem but the said Pr...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Anandi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ275
D.M. Bhandari, J.1. A party consisting of Shri Peshawarilal, District Opium Officer, Ratlam, P.W. 2, Shri Ram Prasad, Preventive Inspector, Narcotics Department, Neemach, P.W. 1, Shri Manaklal, Sub-Inspector, Narcotics Department P.W. 4, and Shri Abdul Latif, Head Constable, Gangapur Police Station, P.W. 9 searched a. house in the town of Gangapur, Bilwara District on 26.6.1960, and seized from a room in the ground floor from the house 7 bags containing opium weighing 3 maunds 31 seers and 1 Chattank (Bengal weight). Anandilal, respondent, and his brother Kanhaiyalal and Smt. Dhapu wife of Anandilal were challaned before the Munsiff Magistrate, Gangapur, District Bhilwara under Section 9-A of the Opium Act, 1878. It may be mentioned that at the time of the search both Anandilal and Kanhaiyalal were not present and the room from which the bags of opium were-recovered was found to be looked. The key to the look was handed over by Smt. Dhapu wife of Anandilal to the search party and after...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Hon. Mr. Justice B.P. Beri and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj77
ORDER1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the State of Rajasthan seeks to question the validity of an order of the Commission of Inquiry, respondent No. 1, dated the 3rd May, 1967, whereby permission was accorded to respondents Nos. 2 to 8 to inspect certain documents called by the Commission from the petitioner in the presence of the Secretary or any officer deputed for the purpose during office hours. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length and have gone through the relevant portions of the papers filed by it. We are not satisfied that by the impugned order any of the legal rights of the petitioners have been infringed nor are we satisfied that the impugned order was one passed without jurisdiction or there was otherwise any apparent error on the face of the record so as to justify the exercise of our extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. It appears that the documents in question were requisitioned by...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanlal Vs. Nandlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj86; 1968CriLJ547
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, vide his order dated 29th August, 1966, has made this reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending that the order of the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, dated 2nd July, 1965, whereby a maintenance allowance of Rs. 40 per month has been ordered to be paid to Mst. Tulsi by her husband Krishanlal be set aside.2. This reference arises out of the following circumstances:3. Mst. Tulsi, a girl of about 17 years of age, was married to Kishanlal in the year 1960, but it is alleged that she was not treated properly by her husband and her mother-in-law According to Mst. Tulsi she was thrown by her husband from the first floor of the house with a result that she broke her hand and leg by that fall She was not treated for about a month and a half by her husband, nor was any information sent to the parents of Mst. Tulsi about her condition. One day Mst. Tulsi slipped away from the house of her husband and we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›