Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj20; 1956CriLJ107
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are six connected appeals by the State against the acquittal of Mithalal accused by a First Class Magistrate. As the main point involved in all these appeals is the same, we propose to dispose of them by one judgment.2. The case for the prosecution may be briefly stated. Mithalal is a goldsmith and carries on the work of preparing ornaments in Jodhpur. The six complainants in these six cases either gave gold only or gold as well as, cash or cash only to Mithalal for the purpose of preparing ornaments. The case of these six complainants was that Mithalal misappropriated the gold or cash given to him and disappeared from Jodhpur. Consequently, they reported the matter to the police and Mithalal was prosecuted under Section 406, Penal Code.3. The Magistrate took evidence and framed a charge against Mithalal under Section 406, Penal Code. But after the case was' over, he did not decide questions of facts raided in these cases and acquitted the accused on the on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj24
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Ramkishan of an offence under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The accused is the proprietor of Grand Hotel, Jodhpur. One Mahendra Singh came and stayed at, the Hotel. When he was leaving, he wag short of money and could not pay the bill that he had run up at the Hotel. Consequently Mahendra Singh left his pistol with the accused, and executed a document Ex. P3 by which he pledged this pistol as a security for the sum of Rs. 300/7/- which he owed to the grand Hotel.He agreed that the money would be paid within a fortnight together with interest. It was also agreed that if the money was not paid within the, time-limit, the Hotel would have the right to recover the amount by selling the pistol. On 23-3-1952, the pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused by the police on the basis, of some information received from Bombay. Thereafter, the accused was prosecuted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj39; 1956CriLJ270
Bhandari, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of Perma appellant who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur under Section 326, I. p. C. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo three months' further rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are very simple. In the village Maunch, there is a house Murli Mahajan with a shop underneath it and in front of the shop there is a chabootra, On 25-10-1952 at about 8 P. M. several persons were sitting on that Chabootra and were settling the rate of chillies which Pakira P. W. 4 had come to purchase from Karauli.Ratanlal P. W. 1 was also sitting on the chabootra and on his back the appellant was standing. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant aimed a blow of the sword which he carried wrapped in a Dhoti, on the neck of Ratanlal. but the blow struck Ratanlal on his right shoulder. This blow of the sword caused two injuries detaile...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj21
Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor Bhuralal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bhilwara, dated 3-3-1952, arising out of certain execution proceedings.2. The respondent Jiwansingh and his brother Sohansingh (who is represented in this appeal by his assignee Motisingh) filed a suit against the appellant for redemption of a pledge of certain ornaments and obtained a decree on 28-8-1940, that they would be entitled to redeem the ornaments on payment of Rs. 547/4/- to the defendant. This decree was confirmed on appeal. On 30-1-1943, Sohansingh alone applied for execution of the decree.Some trouble arose as Jiwansingh had not been made a party to the application for execution and, therefore, on 9-5-1943, Sohansingh stated that he was asking for execution with respect to his share of the decree. In 6-2-1945, the Judgment-debtor objected that he had already compromised the decree with one of the decree-holders Jiwansingh on 20-5-1941. This objection was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj1
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Messrs. Ramjiwan Ramnath against the order of the Civil Judge, Merta, dismissing the application filed by the appellant against ROOP Chand and others for execution of a decree obtained by them against the respondents from the Calcutta High Court, on the ground that execution was barred by limitation, and there had been no revivor as contemplated by Article 183 Limitation Act.2. The facts are that the appellant obtained a decree against Chhogmal and his sons Roop Chand and others, who are respondents in the present appeal, from the Calcutta High Court on 3-2-1938. The appellant got this decree transferred to Aligarh in 1949, and applied for execution by arrest of Chhogmal, judgment-debtor, in December 1949. The proceedings in the Aligarh Court are said to have come to an end sometimes in 1950. Thereafter the appellant got the decree transferred to the Court at Merta and applied for execution.3. The execution of the decree was objected to by the judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj18
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by Kanhaiyalal decree-holder against the order of the Civil Judge Sojat, setting: aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 84 on the ground that the decree-holder auction purchaser had not deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase money as required by Order 21, Rule 84 (1), C. P. C.2. The facts are that certain property was ordered to be sold and 25-5-1953, was fixed for the sale. On that day, the decree-holder applied to the executing court for permission to bid at the auction, and also prayed that the amount realized by sale be set-off towards his decree, the court passed an order on this application in the following terms:,'The decree-holder is permitted to bid at the sale'.Nothing was said about the other prayer made by the decree-holder namely that the purchase money be set-off towards his decree.3. The sale took place on the 25th of May, and the decree-holder's' bid was the highest. The sale was apparently knocked down in his favour, but he did not deposi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1957CriLJ238
ORDERModi, J.1. This is a revision by Dhanna against an order of the Sessions Judge, Merta, dated the 31st March, 1954, by which he set aside the conviction of Dhanna under Section 411, I. P. C., but still ordered that the camel recovered from his possession be made over to the complainant Parsaram.2. It appears that some time in January, 1952, a camel belonging to Parsaram disappeared from Bhajnagar where he had gone with his cattle and the camel for purposes of grazing. Parsaram made a report in thana Kishenganj but no trace of the camel was found then.On the 13th August 1952 Parsaram happened to go to the cattle-fair at Parbatsar and there he found the camel in the possession of the petitioner Dhanna whom he recognized to be his. He immediately made a report and Dhanna was challaned, tried and convicted for an offence under Section 411, I. P. C., by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar.The Magistrate directed that the camel be handed over to the complainant Parsaram. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1957CriLJ237
ORDERSharma, J.1. This is an application for revision by the two accused Bhairulal and Samandarsingh who were convicted by the learned 1st Class Magistrate, Bhawanimandi under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous Imprisonment each and their conviction and sentence have been upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar on appeal.2. The case for the prosecution was that Fayyzuddin Head Constable Police Chowki Pach-Pahar with two constables went to the jungle on the border of Madhya Bharat in the night between the 9th and 10th October, 1953 to check and hold up some stolen oxen which were to pass by that way. At about mid-night both the accused were seen passing that way, Samandarsingh accused had a cycle with him and Bhairulal had a bag.Both the accused were stopped by the police and on search it was found that the bag which was with Bhairulal contained contraband opium. A seizure memo was prepared and it was attested by two witnesses Fatehsingh P. W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj58
Modi, J. 1. This is a complaint by Kr. Amarsingh of Sa-balpore, Tehsil Parbatsar, of professional misconduct against Shri Madan Mohan, an advocate practising at Parbatsar,. District Nagaur. 2. The material facts are these. One Lalia Jat of village Laroli, Tehsil Parbatsar, had made a report, some time in April 1951, at the police station Parbatsar against the petitioner Kr. Amarsingh that he accompanied by some other persons had managed to steal several cart-loads of grass belonging to the complainant. Shortly after, the petitioner's Kamdar Nath-mal happened to go to Parbatsar and meet Shri Madan Mohan. During the course of conversation between Nathmal and Shri Madanmohan, the latter is alleged to have told Nathmal that he had very good relations with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parbatsar, who was his caste-fellow and hoped to hush up the complaint against Kr. Amarsingh provided a handsome bribe be paid to the Sub-Inspector through Shri Madan Mohan, otherwise the Thikana people would ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj81
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These five appeals have been referred to this Bench for decision because of an apparent conflict between two decisions of this Court. The first of these decisions was given by a Bench of three Judges sitting at Jaipur on 31-3-1953 (See Radhey Shiam v. Firm Sawai Modi Basdeo Prasad AIR 1953 Raj 204 (PB) (A) ).The exact question, which was before that Bench for decision, was whether the ex parte decree passed in the former State of Jaipur against a resident of the former State of Dholpur in 1947 could be executed at Dholpur after 26-1-1950,The Bench took the view that even though, at the time the decree was passed, it was the decree of a foreign Court against a non-resident foreigner who had not submitted to its jurisdiction, the political changes, that had taken place in India after 1947, would make the decree executable after 26-1-1950, In what was the former State of Dholpur.The Pull Bench followed the view taken in Bhagwan Shankar v. Rajaram', AIR 1951 Bom 125 (FB) (B...
Tag this Judgment!