Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj300; 1972()WLN413
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner Abdul Gani has prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order may be issued to the Municipal Board, Banner directing the latter not to stop the petitioner from carrying on business of selling meat in a shop taken on rent by him in the Post Office lane, Barmer, on 7-4-1972. The petitioner's case is that he applied to the Administrator, Municipal Board, Banner on 10-4-1972 for granting him a licence to open a meat shop in the Sardar Building, but the Administrator wrongly refused to grant a licence on the ground that it was not in the interest of public health and public convenience to allow the petitioner to carry on business of selling meat in the shop in question. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that in spite of the permission sought for having been refused the petitioner started selling meat in that shop and consequently the Municipal Board took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN585
R.D. Gattani, J.1. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.T.A.') on 24.4.1970 fixed the scope of two stage carriages with one return trip on Banswara Ratanpur via Garhi, Sagwara, Dungarpur, Kherwada and Bichiwada route (hereinafter referred to as 'the' disputed route') Before that on 9.1.1968 the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (petitioner in writ petition No. 2260 of 1970 and hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') had published a scheme under Section 68 C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the following four routes:(1) Udaipur- Dungarpur via Rikhabdeo, Kherwada, (2) Udaipur-Ratanpur via Rikhabdeo, Kherwada, Bichiwara, (3) Udaipur Rikhabdeo, (4) Dungarpur-Ratanpur via Kumba, Thana, Bichipura. A few persons had already applied for the grant of non temporary permits on 'the disputed route'. These applications after getting them published as required under the law, c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN366
C.M. Lodha, J.1. The prisoner Poonam Singh has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Smt. Hansa Devi, and has been sentenced to death. He has also been convicted under Section 392 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The prisoner has filed appeal from his convictions and sentences through Jail and the learned Sessions Judge has made reference to this Court for confirmation of the sentence of death under Section 374. Criminal P.C.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Smt. Hansa Devi was a mid wife in the Residency Dispensary, situated in Jodhpur. She used to live inside the old City. Residency Dispensary is situate on the outskirts of the city of Jodhpur, and, therefore, she took a room on rent in the house of one Rao Raja Bheru Singh, which is situate at a short distance from the dispensary It is said that quite often she used to take rest after working hours in that room and sometimes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj167; 1972()WLN422
ORDERB.P. Beri, J. 1. Briefly stated the facts which give rise to this revisional application are that Shiv Charan was cutting leaves of a Neem tree belonging to Shri Ham and the latter objected to it. Shiv Charan felt offended, went to his house and came with other accused Hargyan, Mullah and Panchya. Shiv Charan caught hold of Shri Ram's father Vishram in his arms and Hargyan struck a Farsa blow on him. The right knee of Vishram registered a cut wound measuring 1 3/4' x 1' x 1/2' and the bone below it was fractured and a piece of the hone had to he extracted from his knee. The accused denied their guilt but the learned Magistrate found only Hargyan and Shiv Charan guilty under Section 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. He acquitted the other accused. He awarded to Hargyan one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/, but extended the benefit to Shiv Charan under the Probation of Offenders Act and ordered him to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- for one year to keep peace...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973CriLJ703; 1972()WLN350
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by the State from the judgment of Shri Mohammad Yaqub. Special Judge. Banswara dated 29.11.1968 by which the learned Judge acquitted the respondent Mohammed Habib for offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5 Sub-section (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 (which will hereinafter be called 'the Act').2. The respondent was a Head Constable in the Police Department. At the relevant point of time he was posted at Check post. Nathupura. District Banswara. On 29.1.1965 he recovered opium from P.W. 2 Noorgul Khan and arrested him under the Opium Act. Noorgul Khan was prosecuted under Section 4 read with Section 9 of the Opium Act in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate. Banswara. The prosecution case is that the respondent demanded illegal gratification from Noorsul Khan on the representation that he would set him acquitted. The amount of bribe was settled at Rs. 50/- out of which Rs. 15/-were paid on 21.6.1965 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj308; 1972()WLN291
ORDERR.D. Gattani, J.1. The respondents have sot a property in Katla Bazar. Jodhpur. That was rented out in different portions by means of three rent-notes. Shri Achal Chand since deceased and now represented by petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/7 in both the writ petitions, was tenant in respect of two rent-notes, whereas the third rent-note was in the name of Firm P. M. Bhandari through Manager Kesarimal. Shri Punwanchand Bhandari son of Achal Chand is the present tenant in respect of that property. One of the rent-notes executed by Achal Chand is dated 3-5-1956. It relates to one shop and the rent fixed in it is Rs. 65/- per month. He executed it for carrying on his business in the name of Achal Ayurved Sewashram in it. The other rent-note executed by Achal Chand is dated 5-5-1956. It is in respect of some rooms on the first and second floors of the property. The rent fixed in it is Rs. 30/- per month. The third rent-note is dated 8-5-1956. It is in respect of one shop and the rent fixed is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1972Raj303; 1972()WLN296
Kan Singh, J.1. This is a husband's appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jodh-pur, dated 25-8-69 dismissing the husband's petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', against his wife, the respondent here.2. Devi Singh was married to Smt. Sushila Devi on 17-4-61 at Jodhpur in accordance with the Hindu rites. After their marriage the couple lived together upto 18-4-63. Thereafter, according to the husband, Smt. Sushila Devi withdrew herself from the society of the husband petitioner without any reasonable excuse and since then she has been living apart from him. According to the husband, although he had made repeated requests to his wife to return to his house, she had evinced no interest in coming back to the husband's house to live with him. On the contrary, he proceeded to say, that the wife disliked the company of her husband and would never live with him. Prior to the petition under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1972WLN375
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is an appeal taken by Ghanshyam Lal choudhary against judgment, dated March 10, 1971, or Mr. T.C. Bhagat, Additional Special Judge, Rajasthan, Jaipur convicting the appellant under Section 168, I.P.C. as also under Section 5(2), read with Section 6(1)(d) Prevention of Corrupt-Act, 1947, and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a period of one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo four months simple imprisonment on the record count. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were made, concurrent.2. The brief facts of this case, as alleged by the prosecution, are that the Anti Corruption Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, changed accused Ghanshyam Lal, Accounts Officer, Water, Works Department, for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 168, I.P.C. as also under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegations against the accused were that during the period betwe...
Tag this Judgment!