Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972CriLJ1588; 1972()WLN169
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. Kallua was acting as Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat. Khanua police station, Roopbas. He alone with other Panchas of the Gram Panchavat ordered the demolition of the eastern wall of the complainant Parsadi's house on January 16, 1966. Complainant Parsadi initiated proceedings against Kallua and others under Sections 166. 167 and 120B I. P. C in the Court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate. Bavana. In the course of the proceedings an objection was taken by Kallua oh August 1, 1966. that he acted or purported to act in the discharge of his official duty as Sarpanch in issuing the order for the demolition of the wall and that as Sarnanch was removable by the State Government he could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the Government by virtue of Section 197 of Cr. P.C. That objection was rejected by the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate. Bavana by his order dated October 15. 1968. A revision-petition was filed by Kallua in the court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, against th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj317; 1972()WLN176
Kan Singh, J.1. The three appeals before me were called on for hearing together as they raise common questions of law. Appeal No, 53 of 1965 is by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Corporation', and has been lodged under Section 82 of the Employees Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', against the judgment of the Civil Judge. Jaipur City, dated 30-4-1965 disallowing certain claims for employees' contribution under the Act for a period anterior to 1-1-1959 namely, from 2-2-1956 to 31-12-1958. Appeal No. 54 of 1965 is again by the Corporation and is directed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge dated 31-3-1965 disallowing certain claims. Appeal No. 58 of 1965 is by the Executive Engineer i.e., the employer awarding a decree in favour of the Corporation in respect of certain items of claim.2. I may narrate the facts with reference to Appeal No. 53 of 1965.3. The Corporation presented an application under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj234; 1972()WLN152
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. Kalvanmal Jaisani has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ. order or direction be issued to the State Government to immediately constitute a Board in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Social Education Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The petitioner's case is that the State legislature enacted a law known as the Raiasthan Social Education Board. Act. 1961, wherebv a legislative mandate was issued to the Government to constitute a Social Education Board for Raiasthan under Section 3 of the Act. His grievance is that the State Government has not carried out this legislative directive for the last 11 years and. therefore, this Court may issue a writ of mandamus to the State Government to constitute the said Board.3. The petitioner while filing this writ petition averred that ho is deeply interested in the Social Education in the sense that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN180
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This writ petition of creditors of Badri Prasad & Kailash Chand raises an important question of law whether an Additional District Judge is competent to exercise the power of revision under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act).2. Respondent No. 3 Phadee filed an application under Section 6 of the Act in the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff), Dholpur for the determination of his debt. The Debt Relief Court determined the debt to the extent of Rs. 3,798.75. A revision was filed against the judgment of the Debt Relief Court in the court of Additional District Judge, Dholpur. The learned Additional District Judge while disposing of the revision application reduced the debt to Rs. 500/-. It is this judgment of the Additional District Judge that has been challenged in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN394
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The prosecution story, in brief, is that deceased Manna Nath had a threshing ground in village Dorani. Sometime before the occurrence accused Bharat Singh raised a hut over his piece of land. Thereafter Manna Nath filed a suit against Bharat Singh in the Nyava Panchayat Friday, preceding the incident, was the date fixed for hearing that case One Devi Nath (Nath Baba) gave evidence on behalf of Manna Nath. On his return to village Dorani Bharat Singh inquired of him as to what evidence he had given in the matter. Devi Nath told him that he had stated what had occurred to him. Bharat Singh then threatened him. At that time Bal Ram, son of Manna Nath, happened to pass that way. Bharat Singh rushed towards him with a 'Jeli'. Bal Ram, however, escaped. Next day, i.e., on the evening of January 16, 1971, Bal Ram and Cnranji, nephew of Manna Nath, were returning home from their fields. When they reached Bharat Singh's house, Bharat Singh shouted that he would take them to tas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN139
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The brief facts of this case are that accused Mst. Jannat is the married wife of complainant Peer Khan She had been married to him some 15 years ago. Subsequently Peer Khan fell ill and was admitted to Baran Hospital Accused Bashir Mohammad, brother of Peer Khan, developed illicit connection with Mst. Jannat during the illness of her husband. Jannat started living with Bashir Mohammed. Peer Khan, therefore, made a complaint in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baran, under Sections 497 and 498, I.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate by has order, dated November 6, 1970, discharged accused Bashir Mohammed and Mst. Jannat. A revision petition was presented to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, against the above order. The relevant portion of the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge runs as below:This evidence is sufficient for proceedings with the accused persons under Section 498, I.P.C. because from this evidence a prima facie case is made out aga...
Tag this Judgment!