Rajasthan Court September 1964 Judgments
Harish Chandra Vs. the Deputy Director of Education, Bikaner Range
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj108
Dave, C.J. 1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging me validity of the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Bikaner, dated 14-9-1962, terminating the petitioner's services, on the ground that it is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner, who is a citizen of India, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at the Madho Middle School, Bikaner, by the Inspector of Schools, Sikar on 14-11-1958. On 28-11-1958, the Deputy Director of Education, Bikaner, transferred him to Government Basic S. T. C. Training School, Churu, us a Lower Division Clerk in the grade of Rs. 60--130. On 23-4-1960, he was suspended under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, by the Inspector of Schools, Churu, since he was prosecuted in a criminal case for offences under Sections 457 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code. On 21-8-1962, he was reinsta...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Shakoor and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj195; 1965CriLJ675
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. In a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Babu alias Kudratullah was tried in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Jodhpur District. This case was registered by the police on the report of Abdul Shakoor. Abdul Shakoor and the other petitioners appeared as prosecution witnesses in that case. The learned Munsif Magistrate while acquitting the accused recorded a finding as required by Section 479A (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed a complaint to be drawn separately against each of the petitioners under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners preferred a revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, but the same was rejected. They have now come up to this Court in revision.2. It has been urged inter alia by the learned counsel of the petitioners that the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate to draw and forward a complaint against the petitioners under Section 193 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamsingh Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Pol ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj140
ORDER1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is common ground between the parties that petitioner Shyamsingh was enlisted as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 3rd March, 1948 at Headquarter Neemuch. In 1958, the headquarter of the 3rd Battalion of the said Police Force was shifted to Ajmer. He made an application on 31st July, 1958 for grant of leave. He was granted leave for 56 days which, was due to expire on 5th October, 1958. Before the expiry of that leave, he sent an application dated 3rd October, 1958 for extension of Ms leave by 20 days. It was received in the office of the Officer Commanding on 6th October, 1958, but it wag refused on 30th October, 1958. Thereafter, he sent in his resignation to the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Ajmer, but it was not accepted and since he failed to join the duty, he was proclaimed as a 'deserter'. Respondent No. 2 passed orders for his arrest. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Kistoori Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Raj98
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. Mst. Kistoori appellant, her son Mahesh aged 17 years and her daughter Mst. Premlata, aged 15 years were tried in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Alwar for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 304, Part Two, I. P. C. read with Section 109, I. P. C. The other two accused were also found guilty under Section 304, Part Two, I. P. C. and they have been released on probation of good conduct. They have not come up in appeal against their conviction, nor has the State filed any appeal or eviction so far, against their release on probation of good conduct. Mst. Kistoori appellant had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. The case against her was that on 21st of May 1962 she sat on the legs of her deceased daughter-in-law Mst. Sharda, aged 20/21 years while Mahesh and Mst. Premlata throttled her to death, It is said that the appellant did not like the way of her da...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Vs. Het Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj47
Beri, J. 1. Against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ganganagar, dated the 22nd August, 1958, who had affirmed the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar, dismissing the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,300/-, a second appeal by the plaintiff was preferred to this Court and it came for hearing before Bhargava, J., in whose opinion the appeal involved certain questions of law on which there is a divergence of judicial opinion and therefore the same has been referred to this Division Bench for decision. 2. The facts relevant for the decision of this second appeal may be briefly recalled. On 17th February, 1950, the plaintiff alleges, Ganpat, the father of the respondents, before us, borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,600/- and executed a 'Khata' in the plaintiff's book of account bearing interest at the rate of Rs. 1/9/- per cent per month. Ganpat again borrowed a sum of Rs. 100/- on 10th April, 1951. The plaintiff admits that certain payments were made towards the cash transact...
Tag this Judgment!Jhaman Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj86
ORDERJagat Narayan, J.1. This is a petition by an elected member of Municipal Board, Bhadra, challenging the validity of the co-option proceedings which took place on 14-1-64. The petition was illed on 11-1-04 and an application was made to stay the co-option proceedings. That stay application was rejected and the petitioner was asked to amend his petition after the co-option so as to challenge the co-option after impleading the co-opted members. No one has appeared to contest this petition. 2. The general election to the Municipality took place on 30-12-63, As no lady member had been elected two ladies were to be co-opted under Section 9 (5) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and a notice for holding co-option proceedings on 14-1-64 was issued by the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Nohar. It was issued on 4-1-64. The petitioner has alleged that it was served on him on 8-1-64. The first ground is that the co-option proceedings were vitiated as the notice was not served on him ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanraj Baldeokishan Through Its Partner Dhanraj and anr. Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj238; 1965CriLJ805
ORDERI.N. Modi, J.1. These are two revisions No. 343 of 1963 by Messrs. Dhanraj Baldeokishan through its partner Dhanraj and No. 344 of 1963 by Messrs. Radhakishan Vidyadhar through its partner Banshidhar and raise an identical question for decision, which arises in circumstances presently to be mentioned.2. One Kanhiya who incidentally was not impleaded as respondent in these revisions was the common accused in both the cases. On a notice having been ordered to issue to him, he is represented by counsel before us. The case for the prosecution was that a theft of 108 bags of Sarson in the case of Messrs. Dhanraj Baldeokishan and 80 bags of gram in the case of Messrs. Radhakishan Vidyadhar had been committed by the accused Kanhiya some time between the 31st May to the 12th July, 1961. The police recovered a sum of Rs. 3800 in the first case and Rs. 1200 in the second case at the instance of the accused as being the sale proceeds of the stolen commodities on a statement made by him under...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Indra and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj104
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the validity of a notice, issued by the Income-tax Officer A Ward, Jodhpur, on 19-4-1963 under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-lax Act, 1961, to the petitioners-assessees is challenged.2. Petitioner No. 1--Messrs. Indra and Company is a registered firm which has Jivanlal and Murlidhar as its partners. Petitioner No. 2 is Jiwanlal in his individual capacity. The petitioners are assessees in 'A' ward of the Income-tax Department, Jodhpur and their accounting year commences on 'Deepawli' every year. Before the commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961, they were served with a notice under Section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Old Act', on 30-5-1961 for the assessment year 1961-62. The petitioners, however, did not file the returns in compliance with the notice till the Income-tax Act, 1961 came into force on 1-4-1962. The 1961 Act will hereinafter be ref...
Tag this Judgment!indra and Co. Vs. Union of India, and Another.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1964
Reported in: [1967]64ITR664(Raj)
KAN SINGH J. - This is writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution by which the validity of a notice, issued by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Jodhpur, on April 19, 1963, under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the petitioners-assessee is challenged.Petitioner No. 1 - Messrs. Indra & Company - is a registered firm which has Jiwanlal and Murlidhar as its partners. Petitioners are assessee in 'A' Ward of the Income-tax department, Jodhpur; their accounting year commences on 'Deepawali' every year. Before the commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961, they were served with a notice under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter to be referred as the 'old Act', on May 30, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62. The petitioners, however, did not file the returns in compliance with the notice till the Income-tax Act, 1961, came into force on April 1, 1962. The 1961 Act will, hereinafter, be referred as the 'new Act'. Eventually, they filed the...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwa Ram Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj32; 1965CriLJ219
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is an appeal by Jiwaram against the judgment dated 13th July, 1964 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, convicting him under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, 3 months further rigorous imprisonment, and under Section 323, Indian Penal Code to a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, month's further rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant and two other persons, Roop Singh-his father-and Mst. Bhudevi- his wife- may be briefly stated as follows:3. Deceased Kalyansingh and the injured Sughadsingh Pw/3 and the three accused were all residents of village Noorpur. The accused Roopsingh is the uncle of Sughadsingh and the deceased Kalyansingh (alias Kaluva). It is said that relations between the accused and the deceased and Sughadsingh had not been happy for some years past. The prosecution case further is that in the evening of i3t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »