Privy Council Cases
Colonial & appellate judgments
Browse Privy Council & House of Lords decisions
Search appeals from Indian High Courts decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and related appellate benches - foundational authority for constitutional and commercial law.
Colonial & appellate
Results · Rajasthan
Varindmal Vs. Radha Krishna and ors.
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1949CriLJ634
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This criminal revision petition arises under the following circumstances:2. Yarindmal, the petitioner before me, filed S, complaint under Sections 312, 506, 323 and 161, Penal Code, against Radha Krishna, Jagdish and Gulzari. Accused l is a Sub-Inspector of Police, while the other two accused are constables. The complaint was to the effect that on 13th June 1948, the acoused arrested the petitioner, handcuffed him, took him to the Kotwali and illegally detained there for two hours. He was eventually released on bail after payment of Es. 60 as bribe to the police officers.3. The complaint was instituted in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate (Mr. Badlani) who referred the case to the District Magistrate in accordance with para. d88, Police Regulations, The case was transferred to the City Magistrate 'for trial' by the District Magistrate. Summonses were issued to the accused by the City Magistrate and they appeared in his Court on 2ith July 1948. Meanwhi...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarmal Vs. the Crown
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ799
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. The petitioner was convicted by Mr. E. D. Mehta, First Class Magistrate, of an offence under Section 326, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this revision petition.2. Mr. C. P. Mathur for the petitioner, argued firstly that the offence, if any, was one Under Section 321, Penal code and not Under Section 326. He elaborated this point by reference to the statement of Dr. Srilal, Sub-Assistant Surgeon, to the effect that there were no marks of disfiguration on ML Gyarsi's nose unless it was carefully examined. The Injury Export Ex. 6 shows a cut 1' x 1/2' x 1/2' on the bridge of the nose, Dr. Srilal was examined as P.W. 4 on 8th June 1948, when ho stated that the above-named injury was a grievous one and had been caused by a sharp weapon like a' razor or a knife. He added that the internal wall separating the two nostrils was intact. I do not agree with the learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Giani Kartar Singh and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ1069
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an application by Giani Ear-tar Singh and sis others Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. Except Giani Kartar Singh all others are reported to have been released and are at present not under detention. Their habeas corpus application, as such, has now become infructuous, and is struck off.2. Two main points have been raised on behalf of Giani Kartar Singh before the Court- firstly, that the Punjab Act, II [2] of 1947, has now ceased to have effect and secondly, that the order of detention has been passed on no sufficient grounds.3. Punjab Act, II [20] of 1947, in my opinion, N has not as yet ceased to have effect. Section 93, Government of India Act, 1935, no doubt, now stands omitted by the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947. Section 18 (3), Indian Independence Act, 1947, however, lays down that;Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the law of British India and of the several parts thereof existing immediately before the appointed day...
Tag this Judgment!Sugan Chand and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj24; 1950CriLJ1075
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. The admitted facts of the case are that the accused-applicants had in their possession 'cloth' exceeding ten pounds in weight each at the Beawar Railway Station and bad purchased tickets from Beawar to Bijainagar. Both Beawar and Bijainagar are situated within the Province of Ajmer-Merwara. The contention, as such, on behalf of the accused-applicants before the court is that under para. 3 of General permit No. l appended to Notification no. 1o1/19-Tex 1/48, dated cloth November 1948, the accused-applicants could have taken 'cloth' without any restriction of weight from any place in one zone to any other place in that zone. Paragraph 3 reads that 'any person may transport... by road, air, sea...or as a railway parcel by a passenger train any 'cloth'...from any place in any zone...to any other place in the same zone.' The accused-applicants accordingly could have transported 'cloth' without any restriction of weight from any place in one zone to any other place i...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Lal and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ935
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. The only question that arises for consideration in revision before the court is whe. ther the proceedings against the applicant in respect of an offence punishable under Section 188, Penal Code should be allowed to continue on the complaint as filed. The District Magistrate passed an order Under Section 114, Criminal P.C. The police submitted a report against the applicant and some others that they had contravened the order, and asked that action be taken against them in respect of the offence punishable Under Section 188, Penal code. The District Magistrate on receiving the report just countersigned it. The report in due coarse was presented before trial Court by the Police. The contention on behalf of the applicant before the Court is that there was no complaint of the District Magistrate within the meaning of 8, 195, Criminal P.C. and that, as such, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the case.2. The complaint is before the Court, and in no wa...
Tag this Judgment!Janwahar and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ890
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The counsel for the applicants has pressed the application in revision mainly on two grounds-firstly ,that there was no proper sanction to prosecute the applicants Under Section 10, Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1946, and secondly, that there was no application on behalf of the prosecution to try the case summarily.3. The complaint before the tri3l Court was lodged on 12-6-1948, and the processes against the applicants wore issued the game day for their presence on 8-7-1948. The sanction of the Chief Commissioner appears to have been filed before the trial Court on 8-7-1948. The sanction or the other papers on the record of the trial Court in no way go to show as to what facts had been placed for obtaining sanction before the Chief Commissioner, The sanction, in the circumstances, could be held to be no valid sanction within the meaning of Section 10, Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1916. The counsel for the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Nath and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ883
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This iS an application in revision by Jagan Nath and five others from the order of Mr. T. Ramabhadran, I.C. S., Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Merwara, Ajraer, partly setting aside the order of the trial Court discharging them in respect of offences punishable Under Section 82, Registration Act and under aSection 177, 183 and 420, Penal Code, and directing them to be tried afresh in accordance with law in respect of an offence punishable under Section 177, Penal Code. The facts that have given rise to the application for revision are briefly as below: The applicants executed a sale-deed in respect of a certain piece of land, and got it registered on 22nd September 1917. The land was described therein as having a 'pacca boundary wall, trees and a garden being inside 'abadi.' The contention of the prosecution before the Court below was that the property sold, in fact, was 'land' within the meaning of Section 3 of Regulation lit [3] of 1914 and that, as such, the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Ballabh Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj21; 1950CriLJ905
Atma Charan, J.C.1. This is an appeal by Radha Ballabh from the order of Raizada Gurcharan Dass, Sessions Judge, Ajmer Merwara, dated 10th January 1949, convicting him Under Section 324, Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. There is also an appeal on behalf of the Crown that Radha Ballabh be convicted Under Section 302, Penal Code, or in the alternative under section 307 and 326, Penal Code and an appropriate sentence be passed on him. This is Criminal Appeal No. VII [7] of 1949.2. Beni Prasad is the deceased, and was the son-in law of Pearey Lai of Ajmer, Jogeshwar is the brother of the deceased Radha Ballabh is the accused, and is married to the niece of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that on 7th February 1913 at about 7-80 p. M. Beni Prasad, Jogeshwar and Pearey Lai were sitting. together on the third storey of the house of Pearey Lai at Ajmer, Radha Ballabh came, and also at down there. He asked Jogeshwar and Pearey Lai to leave...
Tag this Judgment!Gyani Kartar Singh Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ771
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an application in revision by Gyani Kartar Singh from the order of Mr. Abdul Kauf, Magistrate, 1st Glass, Ajmer, convicting him Under Section 19, Punjab Public Safety Act (li [2] of 1947) as made applicable to the Province of Ajmer. Merwara and sentencing him to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. His appeal before the Sessions Judge was dismissed, and he has now come up in revision before the Court.2. The facts of the case have been discussed at length in the judgments of the two Courts below, and need not be reiterated. The counsel for the applicant has raised two points before the Court firstly, that the Additional District Magistrate had no powers to have passed an order Under Section 4, Punjab Public Safety Act and secondly, that there is nothing on the record of the trial Court to justify the inference that he had attended a labour meeting.3. An order Under Section 4, Punjab Public Safety Act, as the very enactment stands, could be issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Chhoga and ors. Vs. Rex
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1950CriLJ877
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. This is an application in revision by Chhoga and three ofcher3 from the order of Mr. D. N. Roy, Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Marwara, Ajmer, dated 3rd June 1949, in appeal maintain, ing their conviction under Section 19, Punjab Public Safety Act (n [2] of 1947) as made applicable to the Province of Ajmer-Merwara and reducing their sentences each to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Bs, 200.2. The case of the prosecution was that the applicants had been served by the District Magistrate with written notices Under section i, Punjab Public Safety Act prohibiting them from attending or taking part in any labour meeting or in any movement subversive of law and order and that they inspite thereof attended a labour meeting and also joined a procession, wherein slogans with a view to creating public disturbance and inciting labourers to action were shouted. The two Courts below relied on the prosecution version of the story, and held that the applicants had no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »