Rajasthan Court March 1969 Judgments
State Vs. Jagdish
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj110; 1970CriLJ731; 1969()WLN146
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Pali. 2. The accused non-petitioner was convicted by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Pali for offences under Sections 338, 429, 279 and 337, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months, six months, two months and two months respectively. All the sentences were made to run concurrently. Having convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above the learned Magistrate further gave benefit to the accused under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act and instead of sending him to jail he directed that the accused be released on bail on his entering into a bond in a sum of Rs. 1000 and a surety in the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate the State filed a revision in the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali, praying that, that part of the order of the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Gani Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN142
Lodha, J.1. The appellant Gani Mohammad has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge. Gangapur under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of Abdul Rashid, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is that on 8.3.1965 while deceased Abdul Rashid was offering prayer in a mosque in Dungarpada, at about 5 p.m., the accused stabbed him with a knife in the right side of his abdomen. Abdul Rashid cried out in agony and ran away from the spot. He crossed over the roof and tin - shed of the shops attached to the mosque and jumped down in the Bazar. The accused, however, followed him and attempted to give a second blow to the deceased Abdul Rashid, who was however reached by P.W. 4 Hiralal Nai. This incident was witnessed by P.W. 2 Hamid Beg, P.W. 3. Nathulal, P.W. 4 Hiralal, P.W. 6 Habib Beg, P.W. 7 Ramjilal and P.W. 5 Manoharlal. A first information report of the occurrence was immediately lodged at the Police Station, Toda Bhim, w...
Tag this Judgment!Rampratap Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj250; 1970CriLJ1559; 1969()WLN190
ORDERB.P. Beri, J. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, 1ms recommended the quashing of the order of the Magistrate, Bhawani-mandi whereby he has held that the inquiry of offences under Sections 360 and 376 I. P. C., although committed at Bhawani-mandi and Indore respectively, could be conducted by him at Bhawanimandi.2. The facts which it is necessary to recall for the disposal of this reference, briefly stated, are these. Rampratap has been accused of kidnapping a minor girl Geeta from Bhawanimandi (Rajasthan) on or about the 13th March, 1967. He took her to Indore and there on or about the 16th March, 1967, committed rape upon her. On behalf of the accused, a question was raised that the offences under Section 376 I. P. C. according to the prosecution having taken place at Indore, the learned Magistrate, Bhawanimandi, had no jurisdiction to inquire into it. This objection was rejected by him. He held that Section 177 read with Section 180 Cr. P. C. and more particular...
Tag this Judgment!Pukh Raj Vs. Parbha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj109; 1969()WLN189
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal against an appellate order of the Civil Judge, Jalore.2. A decree for money was passed against one Bhera on 16-1-59. The decree was executed against the two sons and a widow of Bhera after his death, and a house was sold in execution of the decree on 4-7-1965, The house was purchased by the decree-holder with the permission of the Court, After the sale had taken place, but before it was confirmed, one of the sons of Bhera namely Mota applied for being adjudged insolvent. His application was admitted and the executing Court was intimated about it on 6-8-65. On 7-8-1965 the Receiver applied to the Court for possession over the house and prayed that the sale be not confirmed. The executing Court did not confirm the sale, and by the order dated 9-10-65, directed that the possession over the house, whichhad been sold, be handed over to the Receiver. This order was confirmed on appeal by the Senior Civil Judge, Jalore. Both the Courts belo...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Ajayraj Oswal Vs. Prabha Vanaji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj108; 1969()WLN199
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a decree-holder's Execution Second Appeal against an appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jalore holding that a house belonging to Prabhajudgment-debtor is exempt from attachment and sale under Section 60(1)(c), C. P. C.2. As to who is an agriculturist under Section 60(1)(c) was laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Appasaheb v. Bhalchandra, AIR 1961 SC 589. It was held that:'The word 'agriculturist' in this clause must carry the same meaning as the word 'agriculturist' in Clause (b) and the house must be occupied by him as such. Even if it is not necessary that a person must till the land with his own hands to come within the meaning of the word agriculturist he must at least show that he was really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and was unable to maintain himself otherwise. Where a person is an agriculturist in the widest sense of the term, he is not an agriculturist within the meaning of the clauses, if he is not really ...
Tag this Judgment!Praduman Kumar Vs. Girdhari Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj131; 1969()WLN139
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is a defendant's revision application against an order of the Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City whereby he decided to dispose of issues Nos. 4, 7, 8 and 10 along with other issues framed in the case after the evidence had been recorded.2. It appears that plaintiff Girdhari-singh instituted the present suit on 29th August, 1967, for specific performance of contract of sale of a house, in the alternative, damages to the extent of Rs. 2500 and for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of non-petitioner No. 2 on the basis of an agreement of sale entered into between him and the petitioner on 5-10-1963. The petitioner denied the plaint allegations as also the agreement set up by the plaintiff. The learned Additional Civil Judge framed eleven issues in the suit and ordered that arguments will be heard on issues Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 which in his opinion were preliminary issues. However, on the date on which arguments were to be heard, the learned Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Yadav Motor Transport Co. and ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Bhimgani Ward, K ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Raj316; 1969()WLN134
ORDERL.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a defendants revision and is directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge Baran dated 26th July 1966 deriding issue No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and overruling the defendants objections as to the maintainability of the civil suit. The facts giving rise to revision application are briefly these:On 15th March 1964 the plaintiff-respondent Jagdish Prasad, while going on a cycle from Kota on the Kota-Jhalawar road was knocked down at about 8 A. M. near 6th furlong of 7th mile by motor truck No. RJR 977 and received some injuries. The truck was registered in the name of M/s, Yadav Motor Transport Co., Nasirabad, the defendant-petitioner No. 1 and the defendant-petitioner No, 2 is said to be one of the partners of the Yadav Motor Transport Co. Defendant-petitioner No. 3 Ghasiram is said to be the driver of the truck. At the time of the accident there was no Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Pande (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ199Raj; 1969()WLN123
ORDERKan Singh, J.1. The writ petition before me raises a question of interpretation of Rule 6(1)(11) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1963, hereinafter to be referred as the 'rules.' Petitioner Dr. Surendra Kumar Pande, who is officiating Reader in Surgery, S.M.S. Madical College, Jaipur, questions the validity of an order of the Government No. F. 13 (1)(21) MPH/56, dated 3 March 1967, appointing Dr. Kailash Chander Gangwal, respondent 2, as substantive lecturer under Rule 5(1)(11) of the rules. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the subsequent consequential orders of Dr. Gangwal's appointment as substantive Reader and then later on his being appointed as Professor by the State Government. The relevant facts emerging from the writpetition are briefly these.2. Petitioner Dr. Pande passed his M.B.B.S. In 1952 and M.S. in 1957. On 6 August 1957 he Joined the service of the Rajasthan State as Civil Assistant Surge...
Tag this Judgment!Mangia Alias Mangilal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN118
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is jail appeal submitted by the accused Mangia against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, dated August 29, 1966, convicting appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. The facts of this case, as alleged by the prosecution, are short and simple. The accused Mangia resided at Nehru Colony, Jodhpur, in a Jhumpi along with his mother Mst. Bhuri and his step sister Mst. Patasi, P.W. 12, Lichman, P.W. 2, and Madanlal, P.W. 7, also lived in the same colony, near the Jhumpi of the accused. The hut of Madanlal was situate at a distance of about 100 yards from the appellant. Due to bombardment by Pakistan in the month of September, 1965, Lichhman and Madanlal had sent away their family members outside Jodhpur City. In the night of September 10, 1965, Lichhman slept at the house of Madan lal. On September 11, 1965, at about 5.30 a.m., the accused Mangia went to Lichhman and told him that he had killed his m...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Sahai Agarwal Vs. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj48; 1969()WLN111
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining against the cancellation of a stage carriage permit under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act and seeks a writ of Certiorari against the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan dated the 23rd January, 1964.2. The petitioner is a transport operator and held one stage carriage permit on Shahpura-Behror route and another on Jaipur-Bikaner route of 235 miles length travelling over the Jaipur and Bikaner regions under the Motor Vehicles Act. The non-temporary stage carnage permit was granted to the petitioner in lieu of compensation as he was displaced on account of nationalisation of Jaipur-Alwar route of which the petitioner held a permit. There is no dispute so far. The petitioner contends that the Jaipur-Bikaner permit was granted to him by the State Transport Authority (hereinafter called the State Transport Authority) whereas the respondents contend that it was the Regional...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »