Rajasthan Court April 1972 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
G.D. Chadha Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN224
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision-petition submitted on behalf of Mr. G.D. Chadha against the charge-sheet framed by learned Special Judge, Bharatpur, on January 14, 1972. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that when Mr. Chadha acted as District Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur from June 8, 1960 to July 7, 1962, he had accepted gratification other than legal remuneration from persons as detailed in Annexure 'A' for doing favour to them and thereby he committed offence under Section 161, I.P. G The prosecution allegation further is that Mr. Chadha habitually accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to accept from persons as detailed in Annexure 'A' for himself directly or through Kundan Lal and Hira Lal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act The prosecution also all...
Abdullah Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj272; 1972()WLN245
Lodha, J. 1. These are two connected petitions filed by one Abdul Hafiz on behalf of one Ahdullah alias Irsad Ali, son of Rehman Ali, resident of Malpura, District Tonk, at present detained in District Jail, Tonk under the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Tonk passed in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Foreigners (Internment) Order, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Order'). The facts stated in both the petitions are almost identical. In the writ petition it has been prayed that the State of Rajasthan and its agents be prohibited from deporting the petitioner to Pakistan and any other appropriate writ, direction or order may be Issued, whereas in the Habeas Corpus Petition it has been prayed that the petitioner may be ordered to be released. Of course the prayer for restraining the State of Rajasthan and the Police from deporting the petitioner to Pakistan has been repeated in this petition also.2. The learned Additional Advocate-General has stated before us ...
G.D. Chadha Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1585
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a revision-petition submitted on behalf of Mr. G. D. Chadha against the charge-sheet framed by learned Special Judge. Bharatpur on January 14. 1972. The prosecution allegation in brief is that when Mr. Chadha acted as District Superintendent of Police. Bharatpur from June 8, 1960 to July 7. 1962. he had accepted gratification other than legal remuneration from persons as detailed in Annexure 'A' for doing favour to them and thereby he committed offence under Section 161. I. P.C. The prosecution allegation further is that Mr. Chadha habitually accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to accept from persons as detailed in Annexure 'A' for himself directly or through Kundan Lal and Hira Lal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 161, I. P.C. and Section 5 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of the said Act.The prosecution also ...
Rooda Ram and ors. Vs. Rattu Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1972
Reported in: 1972WLN323
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal. The subject matter of litigation is a field Khasra No. 35 measuring 43 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village Gudawadi. Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu The field originally belonged to one Kashiram. Ghisaram defendant was his son and Ratturam his grand-son from another son Phusaram. Phusaram sold this field to Rooda Ram, Gidha Ram and Nathuram defendant-appellants. Rattu Ram was a minor at the time. Consequently a suit was brought on his behalf by his grand mother Smt. Mohari as his next friend for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Ghashi Ram in favour of the defendant appellants. It was averred that Ghasiram had do right to sell the field. The defendant-appellants contested the suit. They alleged that Kashi Ram had two sons Ghisa Ram and Phusa Ram, but after Phusa Ram's death his wife performed Nata with one Rekharam resident of Pipli and Rattu Ram was born of that union. In other words, according to the defendant-appella...
Jetha Nand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1496; 1972()WLN279
L.S. Mehta, J.1. On May 5, 1964. the petitioner Jetha Nand made a complaint against Kanhaiva Lal and Gidu Mal in the Court of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate. Ajmer City (East) under Sections 381 and 411. Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the complaint were that Kanhaiya Lal was once the complainant's clerk. During the period of his service he stealthily removed certain documents, mentioned in the complaint, from the possession of the complainant and he thus committed a theft. The complainant came to know of this fact when Kanhaiya Lal was examined in a Civil suit (No. 40 of 1961) in the Court of Civil Judge, Aimer. In that case, it is alleged, Kanhaiya Lal admitted of his having removed the petitioner's documents and having deposited the same with other accused Gidu Mal. Thereafter both Kanhaiva Lal and Gidu Mal. with a view to harass the petitioner, conspired and transferred the stolen documents to the Income Tax Department. The two accused requested the Income-tax Department f...
Chhotulal Ajitsingh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR178(Raj); 1972()WLN241
Chhangani, Actg., C.J. 1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' A ', stating a case and referring the following question for our opinion : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 20,272 being loss suffered by theft is an admissible charge against the income of the previous year ' 2. The assesses carries on business as a commission agent for the purchase and sale of cotton and the question relates to-the assessment year 1961-62, the accounting year ending on 17th July, 1960. The assessee used to keep cash in his business premises in connection with his business. In the night between 10th and 11th June, 1960, a theft was committed in the business premises and an iron safe was broken and Rs. 20,272 in cash comprising currency notes and change was stolen. The assessee claimed this amountas admissible deduction while computing the total income of the previous year. The claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, by the...
Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1386; 1972()WLN228
ORDERS. Mehta, J.1. The brief facts of this case are that on May 28. 1971 Sub-divisional Magistrate Parbatsar sent a report to the Station House Officer, Parbatsar to the effect that he had come to know that Ram Chandra and his son Suraj Narain of Jaipur had entertained 500 to 600 persons on May 27 and 28, 1971 against the provisions of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order. 1965 and. therefore, proceedings should be started against the guilty persons. On receipt of the above complaint the Station House Officer went to the spot and investigated the matter. He then submitted his report on May 29, 1971 requesting the court to take cognisance of the offence under Section 7/3 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order. 1965. On receipt of that report the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered to register the case under the aforesaid provisions of law and issued warrants of arrest against accused Ram Chandra and Suraj Narain on June 14 1971. The petitioner...
Chunnilal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj292; 1972()WLN213
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J. 1. In all these review petitions, which are directed against the judgment of this Court in a writ matter, objection has been raised by the office that these review petitions have been filed with a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 2/- each whereas according to the provisions of Article 5, Schedule I of the Rajas than Court-fees Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) application for review should bear one-half of the fee payable on the writ petition. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that the provisions of Article 11 (s) of Schedule II of the Act would apply for determining the question of payment of Court-fees in this matter. 3. Notice about this petition was given to the Government Advocate. Learned Deputy Government Advocate urged that the the correct provision of the Court-fees Act would be Schedule I, Article 5 which provides that applications for review of judgment shall be presented in the Court on 1/2 of the fee payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal comp...
Mukanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Raj314; 1972()WLN387
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J.1. Sumerpur is a town in the District of Pali with a population of about 10,000 persons. The State Government by its notification dated 10th of December, 1968, while exercising its power under Section 2 extended the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) to the town of Sumerpur from the date the said notification was published in the official Gazette.2. Petitioner who is a resident of Sumerpur has challenged this notification, inter alia, on the ground that Section 2 1(2) of the Act confers naked and arbitrary powers on the Government to apply the provisions of the Act to any town in the State and, therefore, this power is discriminatory and violates the guarantee embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution. While comparing the population of the towns of Sojat. Sadri and Bali which are three important towns situate in the District of Pali, the petitioner contends that the application of the provisions o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›