Skip to content


Privy Council Cases Home > Privy Council Court: rajasthan Page 1 of about 52 results (0.028 seconds)

May 07 1882 (PC)

Hukamaram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1982CriLJ2341

ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. In this application, under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the order dated the 7th June, 1979 of Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions case No. 50/76, Hukamaram Umaram & Ramuram, the applicants, contend that the impugned order by which 'hey have been called upon to face the trial and cognizance has been taken against them under Section 319, Cr.. P.C. should be quashed, as it was done on the basis of police statements and no evidence has been recorded by the Sessions Judge.2. Dr. Bhandawat, the learned Public Prosecutor could not dispute the facts as alleged by the petitioners but he submitted that a Sessions Judge was competent to take cognizance on the basis of the police statements recorded under Section 319, Cr. P.C. as per the decision of this Court in Ajayab Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1978 Raj LW 9.3. It is not in dispute that application dated the 14th May, 1979 was moved by the Asslt. Public Prosecutor before the Sessions Court for taking cognizance again...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1889 (PC)

Roopa Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)108

A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is a jail appeal directed against the conviction of the accused-appellant, under Section 326 and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 324 and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/ and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 months. He was also convicted under Section 45? and sentenced to 2 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month's rigorous imprisonment.2. Since it was a jail appeal and accused was not represented by a counsel, Mr. Bhim Raj Arora was appointed amicus-curiae, to represent the accused.3 The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Roopa's daughter & Dhanji's niece Kanta. was engaged with injured Roopa's brother Laxman. But sin...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 1889 (PC)

Ganga Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)33

I.S. Israni, J.1. Heard, both the parties. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 147, 452 & 323, IPC. This application is under Section 438, Cr.P.C. It is given out by Shri Balwada, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the incident has been wrongly given out in the FIR and in fact Mst. Tulsi fell-down on the stones and had some simple injuries. It is also given out that both the parties are close relatives but several revenue suits are pending between them.2. Shri Srimal, learned Additional Government Advocate, opposes the bail application.3. In the fact and circumstances of the case, I, consider it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. The SHO/AO/IO, Police Station, Raghunath Garh, District Sikar, is directed that in the even of arrest of the petitioners Ganga Ram, Debu, Karna, Govinda, Dhanna in the FIR No. 92/89 they be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with Against or...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1915 (PC)

Johny Wilson Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1985(2)WLN19

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is a bail application on behalf of Johny Wilson, who is standing trial for offence Under Section 376/511 IPC in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. I, Jodhpur. He was on bail granted to him on 27-8-83. There after he absented himself on 14-2-84. The bail bonds were, therefore, forfeited. He surrendered before the court on 2-1-85 and again applied for bail. That application was rejected by the trial court and his application for bail was also thereafter rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The courts below found that earlier to 27-8-83 also the petitioner had remained absent from 24-8-77 to 4-8-83 and this time also he had absented himself for almost a year and the proceedings had been held up.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that since the petitioner had already been granted bail the forfeiture of the bonds does not amount to the cancellation of the bail already granted to him and the petitioner was entitled to be r...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1948 (PC)

Niaz Mohammad Vs. Crown

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1949CriLJ1003

Nagarkar, J.C.1. This is an appeal by the accused Nyaz Mohammad son of Mohammad Murad who has been found guilty by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Merwara, by his order dated 6th May 1948, of the offence of murder under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo transportation for life. When the case was originally sent up to the Court of the Committing Magistrate, seven persons were charged with offences of murder, abetment of murder, rioting armed with deadly weapons,, and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The Committing Magistrate on going through the evidence discharged five of the accused persons and com. mitted the case to the Sessions Court against the appellant Nyaz Mohammad and his father Mohammad Murad, charging the former with the offence of murder under Section 302, Penal Code, and the latter with the offence of abetment of murder under Section 302 read with Section 114, Penal Code.2. The prosecution alleged that on the morning of 23rd June 1947 witness Abd...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1948 (PC)

Kishorimal and ors. Vs. the Crown

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1950CriLJ90

ORDERNagarkar, J.C.1. These nine habeas corpus applications Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. are by the nine detenus who have been detained in the Ajmer Central Jail under the provisions of the Punjab Public Safety Act, 1917, which was applied to this Province by Government of India Notification No- 8/6/48-Jndioial I dated 1st May 198. All the nine applications were heard together as the arguments advanced were based on a common ground, and so all the applications are now being dealt with by this order.2. It is common ground that detenus Ismail, Bhanwerlal and Hiralal were arrested on 28th June 1948 by the police acting under S 151, Cri-minal P.C., on certain information received by them about the alleged activities of these three persona. On the same day, i. e. 28th June 1948, it is also common ground that the detenus named Kesrimal, Misnlal, Daulat Rom, Kan-hayalal and Magni Bam were arrested by the police Under Section 161 Criminal P.C. The detenu Puran was arrested on 3rd July 1948...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 1948 (PC)

Kishen Gopal Vs. the Crown

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1950CriLJ209

Ram Labhaya, J.C.1. This is an appeal by the accused who has been found guilty by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer-Merwara, of the offence of murder Under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo transportation for life. The trial was held in the Sessions Court with the help of three assessors, who were of opinion that the accused is not guilty. The Sessions Judge, however, held the assessors' unanimous opinion to be wrong and perverse, and came to the conclusion that the accused had been proved to be guilty of murder.2. The facts of the case are set forth in paras, and 5 of the Session Judge's judgment. The murder of Ishwari Prasad, who was a clerk employed in the Oriental Life Assurance Company, Limited., at Ajmer, is alleged to have taken place in daylight on a public road in Balupura Eoad, Ajmer, at about 1-15 p. M. on 23rd May 1947. It is alleged that there was previous enmity between the family of the deceased and the family of the appellant, Kishen Gopal, who was an employee o...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1948 (PC)

Ram Swarup and anr. Vs. the Crown.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1949CriLJ400

ORDERRam Labhaya, J.C.1. Ram Swarup and Kailash Chandra, petitioners, have put in' separate revision petitions. be to would be disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners were convicted under Section 161 and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment each by the trial Magistrate. They preferred separate appeals in the Court of Session. The learned. Sessions Judge upheld the conviction as well as the sentences. Kailash Chander was a clerk in the Dewar Rationing Office Ram Swaroop was a Sub-Inspector. They as well as one Syed Hussain Head Constable were jointly tried under Sections 161 and 384, Penal Code. Syed Hussain wa3 also convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. His appeal met a similar fate. He has not applied for revision.3. Hiralal and Ghisualal are said to have purchased one bale of cut-piece cloth (chindi). This they kept in a room belonging to one Manmal of Beawar. Shiv Raj (P. W. 9) noticed some people cutting cloth in pieces. He informed Goma Ram Cons...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1948 (PC)

Mohammad Asnad Khan S/O HussaIn Bux Vs. the Crown

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1949CriLJ583

Ram Labhaya, J.C.1. August 1947 was the month of disturbances in the Punjab and Delhi. These had their repercussions in Ajmer City which found ita peace disturbed on 27th August 1947. Muslima hooligans collected in groups. They were armed with sticks, spears and other weapons of attack. They were shouting slogans inciting Muslims to resort to violence. It was in these circumstances that Mangal Earn Head Gonstable of the police started from the Uari Gate and proceeded towards Diggi Square. It was about 6-80 or 7 p. m. then Sugan Singh accompanied him and accord-ing to his version given at the trial, 2 persons Deo Dutt and Jyoti Prasad met him on the way. They were very much frightened. He asked them to accompany him. Proceeding along, be came across two groups of Muslims and claimed that he dispersed them after conveying to them the information that there was no quarrel between the communities. According to him Deo Dutt was a few paces ahead of him and Jyoti Prasad and Sugan Singh were ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1949 (PC)

Hari Datta Vs. the District Magistrate and Suprintendent

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1950CriLJ227

ORDERRamabhadran, C.J.1. This is an application in the nature of habeas corpus Under Section 491, Criminal P.C.2. The petitioner, Hari Datta, was arrested under Section. 3, Punjab Public Safety Act, as applied to Ajmer. Merwara, under the orders of the Adl ditional District Magistrate. He was ordered to be detained in custody for a month. That period has expired and the Provincial Government acting Under Section 3 (4), has directed his detention in custody until further orders.3. Mr. B. D. Sharma for the petitioner urged that the arrest and detention of the petitioner were illegal as the Additional District Magistrate had no authority to act Under Section 3, Punjab Public Safety Act. It was argued that it was only the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate who could have acted Under Section 8. Reliance was placed on Prabhu Lal v. Emperor A.I.R. (31) 1944 Nag. 84 : 45 or. h. 3. 296 wherein it was held that an Additional Distriot Magistrate may have all the powers of the Distri...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //