Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-21-1955
Reported in : 1955CriLJ992
sharma, j.1. this is an appeal by bhimsingh accused who has been convicted by the learned special judge (sessions judge) bharatpur under section 165a, penal code, and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 30/-2. the circumstances under which the prosecution was started against the appellant are said to be that the appellant presented an application ex. pi before the sub-tahsildar kumher for help of the police in preventing the intervention of one chitar in the cultivation of a certain field in village pachmoor, sub-tehsil kurnher, district bharatpur which according to the appellant had been in his cultivatory possession for sometime past. this application was presented in the sub-tehsil, kumher on the 13-8-1953 and it was forwarded to the sub-divisional officer, bharatpur with a recommendation that the appellant be granted relief prayed for by him. the application came up before mr. p. s. saxena, sub-divisional officer and sub-divisional magistrate, bharatpur 'hereinafter to be referred to us the sub-divisional magistrate) on 14-8-1.9.53 and he finding no reason to take the action prayed for, consigned it to the record room and directed the appellant to seek his remedy in proper court. the appellant was present at the time the order was made and after hearing the order, requested the magistrate to take something from him and make an order in his iavour and while so saying he put his hand into his pocket and brought out a money bag.the sub- .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-24-1955
Reported in : 1955CriLJ1285
dave, j.1. this is an appeal against the judgment of the sessions judge, jodhpur dated 26-7-1954 whereby the appellants jethiya and motiya have been convicted under sections 392 and 323 respectively. jethiya has been sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment while motiya has beea awarded 6 months' rigorous imprisonments2. the prosecution case against the appellants was that on the morning of 21-11-1951, one khiya son of raju vishnoi resident of matora was going home from pokarwali nudi. at that time, three persons viz., the two appellants and one nawaha beat him with lathis saying that he was grazing his cattle in the field of kirta jat. it was further alleged against them that alter khiya had fallen on the ground, motiya appellant caught hold of his hands and jethiya and navalia removed the tw6 golden murkis which he was wearing in his ears. motiya appellant also snatched from nis possession one bhakla and then all the three appellants ran away from that place because two persons kana and bhagawana came to the site, being attracted by khiva's cries.3. the first information report about this occurrence was lodged by khiya nimself at the police station, bapini on 23-11-51 at 7 p. rn. according to the prosecution, the stolen gold murkis and bhakla were recovered at the instance of the appellant jethiya from his sheep-yard and field respectively. all the three accused (jethiya, motiya and navalia) were ehallaned by the police for offences under sections 392 and 397, ipc in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-27-1955
Reported in : AIR1957Raj237
bapna, j.1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution of india.2. the regional transport authority, jaipur region, invited applications for certain routes by a notification published in the rajasthan gazette of 5-1-1952, and again on 14-3-1953. one of the routes, for which applications for stage carriage were invited, was the jaipur-gangapur route 96 persons applied for stage carriage permits on this route.the regional transport authority by its resolution dated 6-8-1953, granted 19 permits to 17 persons, and rejected the rest of the applications. duli chand, anand ram kabra, amiruddin, maya betwal, mahadeo ghanshyam, and bansilal govind sahai filed six separate appeals to the appellate authority under section 64, clause (a), motor vehicles act, urging that the refusal of permits to them by the regional transport authority was erroneous, and that a permit for one stage carriage should be granted to each one of them.by two judgments of 8-5-1954, all the six appeals were accepted, and each one of the appellants was granted a permit for one stage carriage.sardar kulwant singh, rahim-ud-din, and asandass, three of the 17 persons, who were grantedpermits by the regional transport authority, havefiled this petition under arts. 226 and 227, constitution of india, challenging the validity of the orderof the appellate authority to grant permits to sixpersons aforesaid, who are respondents 3 to 8 inthis petition.3. it is contended that1. the grant of permit was in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-24-1955
Reported in : AIR1957Raj204; 1957CriLJ797
bapna, j. 1. this is an application under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure. 2. madho singh was convicted under section 302 of the indian penal code by the learned sessions judge, jaipur district, on the 27th february 1954, and sentenced to transportation for life. he presented an appeal through jail, and it was dismissed under section 421, cr. p. c., on the 14th of may 1954. madho singh has filed the present application on 7th june 1954, through counsel urging that the appeal be re-heard. in support of the application it was argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the provision of section 421, cr. p. c,, was discriminatory and denied equality before the law, and being inconsistent with article 14 of the constitution was void, as declared' by article 13 of the constitution. 3. section 421 of the code of criminal procedure is as follows:-- '(1). on receiving the petition and copy under section 419 or section 420, the appellate court shall peruse the same, and, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily: provided that no appeal presented under section 419 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same. (2) before dismissing an appeal under this section, the court may call for the record of the case, but shall not be bound to do so.' it was urged that there was discrimination in the procedure provided for appeals .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-13-1955
Reported in : 1957CriLJ243
ranawat, j. 1. this is a criminal reference by the additional sessions judge of bundi, dated the 29th january, 1955.2. a case under section 395, i. p, c., is pending inquiry in the court of the sub-divisional magistrate, bundi, on a police report. one of the accused, namely, narendra singh was also an accused in that case. but he was shown as absconding by the police and he appeared before the sub-divisional magistrate subsequently, a test identification was then arranged and the prosecution witnesses failed to identify him.thereafter, the prosecution moved the magistrate for arranging another identification parade on the ground that in the previous proceedings the faces of the accused were so hid that the witnesses could not possibly identify them. the learned magistrate turned down the request. the prosecution then moved the district magistrate who ordered the sub-divisional magistrate to reconduct the identification proceedings for narendra singh.the learned district magistrate assumed that in the previous identification proceedings the faces of the accused were so hid as not to allow a fair opportunity to the witnesses to identify the accused. the accused then went to the additional sessions judge, bundi and it was urged on his behalf that the district magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere in the judicial discretion of the sub-divisional magistrate in asking him to arrange a fresh identification parade when the magistrate had already turned down such a request.the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-22-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj28; (1956)IILLJ366Raj
wanchoo, c.j.1. these are four connected applications under article 226 o the constitution by meghraj (no. 22), mukandas (no 28), jeetmal (no. 98) and chunnilal (no. 243). as the main points raised in them are the same, we propose to decide them by one judgment.2. of the four applicants, meghraj was a, male nurse in m. t. b. hospital, bari (udaipur), while the other three were male nurses at the mahatma gandhi hospital jodhpur. they were dismissed on various dates in 1952. their appeals were also dismissed in 1954. thereafter, the present applications were filed, and the order of dismissal was challenged.3. two main points have been, raised by the applicants in their applications. the first is that there was no rule in the government servants' conduct rules which prohibited strikes by government servants. therefore, even if the applicants went on strike, they could not be dismissed from service on that ground, and, in any case, the order of the director of medical and health services dismissing, them for contravening rule 21 of the government servants' conduct rules could not be sustained for the applicants did not commit any breach of that rule.the second point that is urged is that no opportunity was given to them after the enquiry had been completed and their guilt had been established to show cause against the proposed punishment, and their dismissal therefore without complying with theprovisions of article 311 of the constitution was illegal.4. a further point has been .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-27-1955
Reported in : 1955CriLJ1518
orderdave, j.1. this is a revision application by the complainant and it arises in the following circumstances:2. the petitioner filed a complaint under sections 147, 323 and 424, ipc against 10 persons in the court of the magistrate at jetaran. after recording the complainant's evidence. 5 of the accused were charged by the court under sections 323 and 424, ipc and the rest were discharged. thereafter, the prosecution witnesses were recalled for further cross-examination by the accused. one of such witnesses was daljitsingh, sub-inspector of police. he was cross-examined on 18-1-1954.after his examination, it was submitted by the witness that he had attended the court on a previous date also viz. 1-8-1952 but he could not be examined on that date as the magistrate was not present at the headquarters and, therefore, he requested that he should be paid his expenses for that date as well. the witness .requested the court to verify the fact of his attendance from some vakils. accordingly, the magistrate verified from three vakils shri abhey-karan, shri bachhraj and shri badridan and being thus satisfied, lie ordered the complainant to pay the expenses of the witness for the previous date (1-8-1952) as well.3. against the said order dated 18-1-1954, the complainant filed a revision application in the court of the sessions judge, pali. it was urged by him that the attendance of the said witness was not recorded on the order-sheet of 1-8-1952, and that the magistrate's finding .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-23-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj30; 29ITR165(Raj)
wanchoo, c. j. 1. this is a reference by the appellate tribunal under the income-tax act.2. the following question has been referred to this court for answer :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the higher exemption limit of rs. 7,200/- in terms of the proviso to para. a in part i of schedule i of section 2, finance act of 1951?'3. the facts of the case are these: the assessee messrs dhannalal devilal of jaipur filed a return for the assessment year 1951-52, and claimed the benefit of the higher exemption limit as provided in para. a in part i of schedule i of s. 2, finance act of 1951. the firm in question was at that time owned by two minors . named sita ram and madhav who were members of an undivided hindu family.further at the relevant time this family had ., two other members, namely the widowed mother and the widowed grand-mother of the two minors. the question arose whether is view of the existence of these ladies, and particularly the widowed mother, the assessee could claim the higher exemption limit of rs. 7,200/-. the income-tax officer held that they could not. the appellate assistant commissioner, however, held that they could. thereupon, there was an appeal before the tribunal which agreed with the appellate assistant commissioner.the present reference has been made by the tribunal on the application of the commissioner of income-tax. it came for hearing before a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-12-1955
Reported in : AIR1957Raj234; 1957CriLJ907
wanchoo, c.j.1. this is an appeal by the state against the acquittal of indraj by a magistrate of the first class of an offence under section 454 of the i. p. c.2. the prosecution case was briefly this. shivkaran and his family lived in nangal bari. he and members of his family had gone out to their fields on the morning of 29-9-1952 and had shut up the house. when they returned in the evening, they found, that the floor of the house was open and that the lock of an almirah inside the house had been broken. the almirah contained rs. 350/- in currency notes and a tin-box containing gold and silver ornaments. the money as well as the box of ornaments were found missing. it was also stated in the first report that the house of the accused indraj was next door and that the accused knew that the money and ornaments were in that almirah. suspicion was expressed against indraj on the further ground that he was a gambler. it was also explained that there was delay in the report as they were trying all along to find out about the theft.3. the report of the incident was made in the thana on 3-10-1952. the police arrived on the scene on the 4th oct. and it is said that a list of stolen property was prepared on that day. the list is ex. p. 5. this list was prepared as there was not a complete list of the stolen property in the first report where only a few ornaments were mentioned and it was stated that the details would be given by shivkaran and his wife. the case for the prosecution .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-13-1955
Reported in : AIR1956Raj98
wanchoo, c.j. 1. this is an application by manphool bai under order 12, rule 5 of the supreme-court rules, and it is prayed that this court should issue a certificate that the appeal has not been effectually prosecuted by the appellant. 2. the circumstances leading to this application may be briefly narrated. a suit was brought by mst. manphool bai in november, 1943, for arrears of rent and ejectment against laduram who was tenant of the shop in dispute, and mst. gulab bai who was also' made a defendant though no relief was claimed against her. it may be mentioned that manphool bai claimed to be the daughter-in-law of gulab bai by virtue of the adoption of her husband by gulab bai, end filed the suit as the widow of the adopted son phool chand. the suit was decreed by the first court, but on appeal the district judge set aside that decree, and dismissed the suit. thereupon, there was a second appeal in this court, which was allowed on 2-1-1952, and the suit was decreed against laduram. there was then an application for leave to appeal by mst. gulab bai on 28-1-1952, and a certificate was granted to her on 30-9-1953. 3. we are in this case concerned with what happened after the certificate was granted. under order 45, rule 7, the applicant for leave co appeal has to take certain steps after the certificate 3s granted. he has within 90 days, or such further period, not exceeding sixty days, as the court may upon cause shown allow from the date of the decree complained of, or .....Tag this Judgment!