Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1962Raj35
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, recommending that the order of commitment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh for the trial of the accused under Sections 409, 468 and 477A I.P.C be quashed.2. The facts which led to the prosecution of the accused are that that he was Branch Post-Master in village Parasrampura from 3rd March, 1953 to 12th June, 1953, and during this period he received a number of money orders and insured letters to be delivered to their respective addressees, but instead he misappropriated the amounts to his own use, forged the receipts of the addressees and made false entries in the account books of the Branch Post Office. The number of items in respect of which misappropriation and falsification of accounts, is said to have been committed by him, is 19. In each case the addressee is different and the money orders and the insured letters were also to be delivered on different dates. The police after i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ843
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. It is a petty 'marpit' case in which the applicant along with her relations is said to have thrown stones at the complainant. The applicant is & 'pardanaBhin' woman, and her presence during the course of the complainant's evidence on this ground was dispensed with by the trial Court Under Section 205, Criminal P.C. The trial Court subsequently directed the applicant to present herself in person so that her statement be recorded Under Section 245, Criminal P.C. The applicant has come up in revision from this order of the trial Court,3. The trial Court in its order has given no reasons to show as to why it thought it necessary to direct the applicant to appear in person for recording her statement Under Section 2-15, Criminal P.C. The pleader who was appearing for her could have easily been asked to make the statement. It has been held from time to time by the Court that the provisions of Section 206, Criminal P.C. should be liberally constru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ864
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an accused's application for transfer of the case pending against them from Ajmer to Beawar. The application has been made mainly on the ground of convenience to the parties.2. It is an admitted fact that the applicants have not approached the District Magistrate in the matter first. When a remedy was open to the applicants in a lower Court there was no reason as to why they should have come up straightway before the higher Court, If there were any special reasons that prompted the applicants not to go to lower Court first, then they should have given those reasons. It has been held time after time by different High Courts that before an application is made to the High Court for transfer of a case the District Magistrate must be moved first. The High Court would not ordinarily entertain an application for transfer when the applicant could under the law have moved the District Court for the same relief and has not done be. The High Court would interfere ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1988Raj31; [1990(60)FLR81]; 1987(2)WLN491
ORDERI.S. Israni, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Jaipur City, dated 28-2-84 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2/84(8/84) whereby the order of the learned Additional Munsiff (West) Jaipur City dated 15-12-1983 was reversed and temporary injunction in favour of the non-petitioner was granted.2. I have heard Mr. S. M. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. L Badhdar, learned counsel for the non-petitioners.3. Mr. Mehta states that plot No. D-16 situated in Kalwad Scheme, Jhotware, Jaipur was auctioned on 29-1-1973. The non-petitioner was the highest bidder and his bid for Rs. 24086.48P. was accepted. 1/4th amount of the auction price was deposited on the spot and as per the conditions of auction, 3/4th of the amount was to be deposited by him within 30 days from the date of confirmation of auction. The auction was confirmed in favour of the non-petitioner on 5th Fe...
Tag this Judgment!