Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-06-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj153
..... 4. we are concerned in this application with the indian explosives act, 1884, and the rules framed thereunder. it cannot, in our opinion, be denied that control of explosives by the state is necessary in the interests of the general public, explosives are dangerous substances, and it is in the interest of the general public that all and sundry should not have explosives in their possession, or should not be permitted to use them for making fireworks, etc., without proper conditions and restrictions.consequently section 5 of the indian explosives act (no. iv) of 1884 ..... to that objective 'that the propriety of the classification would have to be tested.'we can say the same thing when dealing with the question of reasonable restrictions under article 19. where the legislative policy is clear and definite and cannot be called an unreasonable restriction and a discretion has to be vested by the law or rules upon a body of administrators or officers to make selective application of the law, the discretion that is so conferred on official agencies in such ..... at page 132. these remarks were made in connection with article 14 of the constitution, but apply with equal force to article 19 :''in my opinion, if the legislative policy is clear and definite and as an effective method of carrying out that policy a discretion is vested by the statute upon a body of administrators or officers to make selective application of the law to certain classes or groups of persons, the statute itself cannot .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-21-1955
Reported in : 1957CriLJ231
ORDERDave, J.1. This reference comes on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated the 16th of August 1955.2. The facts giving rise to it are that four persons namely Lumbaram, Kheraj, Pitha and Ghewaria were arrested by the Police on 2nd of May 1955 because they were suspected of committing the murder of one Nawalaram Jat on the previous day. After investigation, the Police challanged three of them. Against the fourth, namely Lumbaram, it was reported that the evidence against him was not sufficient for his prosecution and therefore, he should be discharged.The negative report against Lumbaram was rejected by the First Class Magistrate, Jodhpur on the ground that no evidence was recorded till then in the court. He ordered that the accused would stand his trial along with others. Against this order, Lumbaram filed an application in revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur.The learned Sessions Judge has expressed a doubt if the procedure adopted by the Magistrate i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-12-1955
Reported in : AIR1957Raj167
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner Mangilal praying that the order of the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, respondent No. 1 dated the 14th of June, 1954 cancelling, under Section 60(d) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, the permit for plying a stage carriage be set aside and respondent No. 1 and the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur Division Jodhpur respondent No. 2 be prohibited from interfering with the plying of bus of the petitioner. 2. The circumstances under which respondent No. 1 ordered the cancellation of the permit of the petitioner are as hereunder:-- 3. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodh-pur, published a notification in Rajasthan Raj-patra dated the 4th of October. 1952 inviting applications for permits for plying stage carriage on Makrana Parbasar-Bassi route for three years The petitioner's application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-08-1955
Reported in : 1957CriLJ234
ORDERDave, J.1. This reference comes on the report of the learned Additional District Magistrate Jodhpur, dated the 17th of January 1955. He has made a recommendation that the offence of Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B alleged against the accused Karamsingh was committed in Phagwara in Pepsu State, that the Extra First Class City Magistrate has, therefore, no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and so the proceedings should De quashed.2. It appears that the question of jurisdiction was raised by the accused Karamsingh in the court of the Extra Magistrate First Class, Jodhpur, but it was held by him that the facts alleged by the prosecution disclosed a case under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, he had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.3. It Is alleged by the prosecution that one Meharsingh wanted to go out of India, but the Patiala Government had refused to give him the required permission in February 1952. He was however, very anxious to go to a fore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-07-1955
Reported in : AIR1957Raj175
1. This is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit for injunction.2. The plaintiffs Badia, Pakhia, Nawala and Tala claimed that they were Bapidars of Khasra No. 169 situate in village Deoli, Tehsil Desuri, and that they were in possession of the said land. Their case was that the defendants, (except the jagirdar of Deoli) who owned houses on the north-western and south-western side of their land had built a number of doors opening on to the plaintiffs' land and also carved out a new way through the said land and, therefore, they prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs' land for purposes of passage and also an injunction enjoining them to close the doors in question.Out of the defendants, Samratha, Poma, Natha. Nawala, Bala, Hirka, Mania, Pannia, Moti, Nawla and Hakia admitted the plaintiffs' claim and stated that they had opened the doors in question and the way at the instance of the jagirdar and that these did not exist ever before. The other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-05-1955
Reported in : 1957CriLJ235
ORDERDave, J.1. This is an application in revision by Gangaram and thirty-three others against the order of the District Magistrate of Bhilwara, dated the 4th of February 1954.2. The facts giving rise to it are that 70 persons were challenged by the police in the Court of the Extra Magistrate, Jahajpur for offences under Sections 148, 447, 379 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. On the 4th of June 1952, all of them failed to appear in the trial court and, therefore, their personal bonds were forfeited and the court directed notice to be issued to them under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Thereafter they filed their reply in the court on 30th of June 1953. Some of them took the plea that they could not come to the court on account of two deaths in their village and they had to join the cremation ceremony. Others took the plea that they had to attend the court at Shahpura in another case and, therefore, they could not come.The Magistrate found that twelve of them were required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-30-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj171
Dave, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal have already been stated in our order dated 20th of October, 1955 deciding the preliminary objection of the respondents, and, therefore, they need not be repeated. This judgment may be read in continuation of the said order.2. The trial court had framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings:(1) Whether the ground of the Chowk on the southern, western and northern sides of the temple is in ownership of the plaintiff. (2) Whether the Bhetpatra is illegal, inoperative and inadmissible in evidence. (3) Whether the plaintiff alone is entitled to bring the suit. (4) Whether the actions of the defendants cause inconvenience to the plaintiff. (5) What relief the plaintiff is entitled to. 3. The trial court decided all the issues in the plaintiff's favour and decreed the suit.4. Learned counsel for the appellants has attacked the finding of the trial court on the first three issues. It is urged that the plaintiffs have based their su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-23-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj107
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Jugraj, and arises in the following circumstances: 2. The case relates to village Osia in which a Panchayat had been established under the Marwar Village Panchayat Act of 1945 (hereinafter called the Marwar Act). Prom the 1-1-1954, the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. 21) of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force. A notification was issued under the Act for the establishment of a Panchayat consisting of two villages namely Osia and Dhunaria. Thereafter, elections were held to this Panchayat of the two villages, and certain persons were elected. The applicant contends that under Section 93 (2) of the Act the Panchayats established under the Marwar Act were deemed to have been established under the Act from the date of its commencement, i.e. 1-1-1954. Therefore, it was not open to the State Government by means of a notification, dated 13-11-1954, to establish another Panchayat consisting of Osia and D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-21-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj67
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Bherumal and Babulal of an offence Section 302. I. P. C. by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sirohi.2. The case for the prosecution was briefly this. Foujmal deceased was a young man of about 19 years of age, and used to live in village Mandar. Roopchand P. W. was a relation of Foujmal. This Roopchand had a brother Manilal who wag also a young man. Babulal accused is of the same caste as the deceased, and is the son of Amichand who was also an accused in this case, but has been acquitted. .Babulal's mother had a sister Rohni Bai, Her parents are dead, and she used to live with her brother-in-law Amichand, and is still living with him. It is said that she fell in love with Manilal but Manilal's family was not in favour of the marriage of Rohni Bai with Manilal. It is also said that Manilal himself was not keen on marrying Rohni Bai. She was however, so keen in the matter that she offered 'Dharna' for some time at th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-04-1955
Reported in : AIR1957Raj213
Modi, J.1. This is a petition by Bhoorchand under Article 226 of the Constitution and arises under the following circumstances.2. The petitioner's case is that he had obtained the lease of some 2400 bighas of land from the jagirdar of Sanwarla, Tehsil Siwana, by a deed dated the 3rd December, 1951, and that he had been carrying on the work of manufacture of salt over 1 1/2 acre out of the area mentioned above for the last four years and invested round about Rs 10,000/- over such manufacture. He also states to have applied but without success so far, for a licence, to the General Manager, Central Excise and Salt Government of India, for the purpose of manufacturing salt over a larger area but contends that so far as the existing area, to which he has confined the manufacturing operations is concerned, namely, the one and half acre, he is perfectly within his legal rights as such manufacture is covered by a press-note dated the 23rd April, 1948. issued by the Government of India under Se...
Tag this Judgment!