Rajasthan Court May 1975 Judgments
Ramswaroop and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)254
Kan Singh, J.1. Three persons were put on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, for causing the death of one Mohania on 26-7-74. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Ramswaroop under Section 302 I.P.C. and condemned him to death. He convicted accused Ramjilal for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to imprisoment for life. He however, aquitted Ramkhiladi. Ramswaroop's case is before us for confirmation of the death sentence and the two accused had filed appeals through jail as well as through their counsel and in this way all these four matters are being disposed of by this judgment.2. Deceased Mohania who was aged 60 or 62 years, was living in village Rendayal Turk in the part of the habitation where Thakurs lived. His relations with the Chamars of the village who lived in another part, were strained on account of a criminal case between Mohania and some of the Chamars. On the morning of 26-7-74 accused Ramsw...
Tag this Judgment!Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Dave and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1975
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ499Raj; 1975()WLN434
P.N. Singhal, C.J.1. This special appeal of the Udainur Mineral Development Syndicate Private Ltd., Bhilwara, is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated July 9, 1971. It lies within a narrow compass and a narration of the undisputed facts will he quite sufficient for its disposal.2. Respondent, M.P. Dave was employed as a mechanic in the appellant's factory in Bhilwara and had been in continuous service for not less than one year when he was retrenched by a notice dated July 25, 1966 which was served on him on July 30, 1966. He was, however, not paid the compensation prescribed by Clause (b) of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,' at the time of the retrenchment. He moved the Labour and Conciliation Officer, and ultimately the dispute between him and the appellant was referred to the Labur Court for deciding the Question whether the removal of the respondent was proper and legal and, if not, to what relief he was ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Moti Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1975
Reported in: 1975(8)WLN137
K.D. Sharma, J.1. These four criminal revision-petitions Nos. 314 of 1973, 319 of 1973, 320 of 1973 and 322 of 1973, are taken up for hearing and decision together as a common question of law is involved in all of them and are disposed of by one judgment.2. All these applications in revision arise nut of separate trials being held in each case in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The trials are in respect of offence punishable under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It appears that in each of the for case cognizance was taken on complaints which were made after police investigation under Chapter XIV of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigations no charges sheets under Section 173 Cr.P.C. were filed, because the condition required to take cognizance of an offence under the Act is that there must be a complaint made by order of, or under authority from the appropriate Government, or some officer empowered by such Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council and anr. Vs. Mangilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1975
Reported in: 1975()WLN343
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Council of Jaipur against the appellate order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, dated 6-10-69 in a case under Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter shortly referred as the 'Act'. It raises a short point involving interpretation of the word 'prevents' occurring in Section 16(1)(b) of the Act.2. On 17-1-68 Shri A. P. Goyal P.W. 1, a Food Inspector of the Municipal Council came across the accused Mangilal who was carrying two barrels of milk on his cycle. The Food Inspector stopped the accused and asked him to sell a sample of milk for testing as the Food Inspector suspected that the milk in the two barrels was adulterated. The accused, however, refused to give the sample in the presence of the Motbirs. The Inspector tried to persuade the accused to give the sample, but he refused to do so but expressed his willingness to be taken wherever the Inspector would like to take...
Tag this Judgment!Khinvdan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1984; 1975()WLN132
ORDERKalyan Dutta, J.1. Khinvdan alias Khiny Singh has applied for bail under Section 439(1) of the new Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Prosecution case against him is that he committed the murder of his wife Kalyan Kanwar alias Nen Kanwar by strangulating her while she was sleeping in a room of his house in the night between 16th and 17th November. 1974. His bail application was rejected by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri, on 24th February, 1975 and thereafter by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, on 17th March, 1975,3. The petitioner was arrested by the local police on 2-12-1974. Thereafter he was kept in detention by a series of orders of remand obtained by the investigating agency from the learned Judicial Magistrate during the course of investigation. The investigation, however, could not be completed within a total period of 60 days from the date of the arrest of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate did not release the petitioner on bail even after the expiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas and ors. Vs. Sewaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)218
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This revision petition is directed by Gopaldass and eight other against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated March 28, 1973 whereby he set aside the order of discharge and reminded the case to the trial Magistrate for holding further inquiry into the matter and passing fresh orders according to law.2. The fasts leading to this revision petition are that on August 12, 1966 at 5 00 p.m. the accused demolished the construction raised by the complainant and removed the material from the scene of occurrence. The complainant filed a complaint to the court of Sub divisional Magistrate Balotra and lodged a first information report at the police station, Balotra Later on, both these proceedings were consolidated. The petitioners along with others were ordered to be prosecuted under Sections 395, 147, 447, 342, 427 read with Section 149 I.P.C.3. In the course of proceedings an objection was taken by the accused on June 3, 1967 against their prosecution on t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Narsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)235
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Narsingh has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to death, Criminal Murder Reference No 4 of 1974 has arisen out of this judgment for the confirmation of the death sentence.2. The prosecution case against Narsingh is that on the night between 15th & 16th of May, 1973, when Abhaysingh was sleeping at his 'dhani' known as 'dhani' of Bharatsingh Jasol in village Bhainsada, the accused inflicted injuries on his person with a sharp edged weapon. In the morning Narsingh came to PW. 5 Prabhu Singh, the real brother of Abhaysingh, and informed him about the condition of Abhaysingh. Prabhusingh went to the place where Abhay Singh was sleeping and found that he was breathing his last. Prabhusingh then went to the village and informed witness Lachmansingh Sarpanch and collected few other persons including Bhartsingh Singh, Sajjan Singh and Ramlal and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghisa Ram (Deceased) Through Kishansingh and ors. Vs. Raja Ram Kumar ( ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)199
J.P. Jain, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Ghisa Ram, plaintiff, in the court of Munsiff City Ajmer against Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava and Tej Kumur Bhargava on 13-11-62. There is a property with huge compound situate at Srinagar Road, Ajmer. That belonged to one Sooraj Prakash Bhargava. The entire property was leased out to two defendants Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava and Tej Kumar Bhargava by him. On the west of the property Nawal Kishore Press is located. Towards the East is the residence of the manager of the press. In between these two properties the plaintiff Ghisa Ram purchased two plots of land 'C' and 'D' measuring 803,61 Sq Yds. from the owner of this property by a sale-deed dated 29-7-69. According to the plaintiff he became the owner of the two plots from that date and the defendants namely Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava and Tej Kumr Bhargava became his tenants. No rent for this portion of the demised premises was apportioned by the parties to the sale and the tenants. ...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Singh Vs. Mst. Meena Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1975
Reported in: 1975WLN(UC)202
J.P. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by Prahlad Singh whose petition for judicial separation against his wife, Smt. Meena Kumari has been dismissed by the District Judge, Udaipur, on 15-4-74.2. The parties are Sindhis by caste and they were married according to Hindu rites on 17-1-60 at Udaipur. It appears that they lived together for about ten years. In the petition dated 3 8 73 it has been alleged by Prahlad Singh that Meena umari has deserted him for more than three years and has been stating at her father's place without any reasonable excuse. It was also alieged that his wife had been very cruel to him when she staying with him. He mentioned an incident when she ran after him with a burning piece of wood. According to the petitioner Meena Kumari is also a woman unsound mind and on account of irregular periodical menses she has not been able to conceive which has also caused a tension on the mind of the petitioner, as he would not be able to run his family name. Thus he prayed for jud...
Tag this Judgment!Malik Ram Kalra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Raj229; 1975()WLN259
Shinghal C.J. 1. Appellant Malik Ram Kalra was an, existing operator on the Jhunjhunu Delhi (via Pilani) inter-State route when a scheme of the State Transport undertaking for providing road transport service from Jaipur to Pilani, hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, was approved. He felt aggrieved because his route was overlapped by the Jaipur-Pilani route from Jhunjhunu to Pilani and the Scheme was of complete exclusion of all other persons. He filed his objections before the Joint Legal Remembrancer, but without success. He then filed a writ petition in this Court, but it was dismissed by a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated August 22, 1974. He has therefore filed the present special appeal on a number of grounds. The learned counsel for theappellant has however urged five points for our consideration and we shall examine them one by one. 2. It has been argued by Mr. Vyas appearing on behalf of the appellant that the Scheme was illegal inasmuch as it was published without t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »