Rajasthan Court March 1976 Judgments
Prahlad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ694; 1976(9)WLN231
ORDERKalyan Dutta, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, with a recommendation that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, dated 27th January, 1973, convicting Prahlad petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. read with Section 3 of the Rajasthan Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils Dealers Licensing Order, 1968, hereinafter referred tc as the Licensing Order, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 30/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days and confiscating six tins of hydrogenated vegetable oil to the State may be quashed on the ground that the petitioner could not be prosecuted and convicted for this offence, as Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Licensing Order was amended by Notification No. F. 17 (32) Food/Sup/Legal/68, G.S.R. 12 published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Extraordinary 4 (Ga) (i) dated 29th May, 1972, and a qua...
Tag this Judgment!Hajialisher Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1658
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an application for grant of bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner Hajialisher against whom the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barmer is stated to have taken cognizance of a case under Section 302, I.P.C. with certain other offences. The petitioner has come straight to this Court under Section 438, Cr. P.C. without approaching the Court of Session.2. Two preliminary objections have been raised by the learned Public Prosecutor to the entertainability of this application. It is urged, in the first instance, that the Sessions Court should have been approached first. The other objection is that since a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, the application for hail cannot lie under Section 438, Cr. P.C. but it must be dealt with under Section 439, Cr. P.C. and that the accused must surrender before his prayer for grant of bail is considered3. Since the preliminary objections raised by the learned Public Prose...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdayal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ148; 1976(9)WLN28
ORDERKalyan Dutta, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by Gurdayal Singh against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, dated 13th November, 1975, in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1974, upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 4 read with Section 9 of the Opium Act. The petitioner was convicted for the aforesaid offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was as follows:3. On 27th October, 1970, at about 9.30 P.M. Shri Bajrang Lal, Superintendent of Police, Bundi, received a credible information upon telephone from some person that truck No. MPO 2550 driven by Gurdayal Singh petitioner was carrying contraband Opium in it on Kota Bundi route. The Superintendent of Police, Bundi, relied upon the information and directed Shri Nagendra Puri, Station House Officer, Bundi, to keep watch on the road and to stop the truck on its arrival, Nagendra Puri ...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ59
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated November 26, 1974 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur wihereby the accused-appellant Babulal, son of Moolchand Sadh was convicted for the murder of Babulal, son of Chhotu Ram Harijan, under Section 302, I.P.C, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of which he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on April 27, 1974 between 4.30 P.M. to 5.30 P.M. Babulal Harijan (since deceased) had gone to the hotel owned and managed by the brother of the accused. At that time the author of the first information report P.W. 6 Kamal happened to come to the shop to take tea. The accused asked Babulal Harijan (since deceased) why he was not being seen near the hotel in those days. He replied that he had not gone anywhere out of Jodhpur, whereupon the accused further enquired,...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliya and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ74
V.P. Tyagi, A.C.J.1. All these three appeals are directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 18th Dec, 1971 whereby the three appellants, namely, Kaliya, Pabia and Hamiya have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The two accused, namely, Dharamsingh and Soniya who were also tried along with the appellants, were however acquitted of the said charge accepting the plea of alibi advanced by them.2. The facts giving rise to this criminal litigation are as follows:3. Accused Dliaramsingh who has been acquitted by the Court had inimical relations with deceased Misriya and it is said that litigations were going on between them. On 15th February, 1971 at about sunset deceased Misriya was going to his field in village Sayala. P.W. Sardara joined deceased on the road because he was also going in that direction to ease himself. It is alleged that Misriya and Sardara saw five accused persons including ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliya and Hamiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN68
V.P. Tyagi, Ag. C.J.1. All these three appeals are directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 18th December, 1971 whereby the three appellants, namely, Kaliya, Pabia and Hamiya have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The two accused, Gamely, Dharamsingh and Soniya who were also tried along with the appellant, were however acquitted of the said charge accepting the plea of alibi advanced by them.2. The facts giving rife to this criminal litigation are as follows : Accused Dharamsingh who has been acquitted by the court had inimical relations with deceased Misriya and it is said that litigations were going on between them. On 15th February, 1971 at about sunset deceased Misriya was going to his field in village Sayala PW. Sardara joined deceased on he road because he was also going in that direction to case himself. It is alleged that Misriya and Sardara saw five accused persons including ...
Tag this Judgment!Jalal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj141; 1976(9)WLN38
ORDERC.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners who are brothers have made two separate applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of writ quashing orders made against them under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'). The orders are identical and read as follows: 'You............ a Pak. national resident of Chak No. 179 P. S. Fortabas District Bhawalpur, Pak. at present residing in India at Phoolsar PS Anoopgarh c/o..................... entered India on 10-11-1971without any valid travel documents for which you are facing trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Raisinghnagar in case FIR No. 17 dated 11-10-1971 under Section 3/6 IPPA, 3/14 F. Act PS Gharsana. I, Shyam Pratap Singh Rathore, District Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar hereby order you under Section 3(2)(c) of Foreigners Act, 1946 to leave India before 14-8-1974 positively. You are further directed to secure requisite travel documents th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)76
C.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 7.1.1969 by the Government of Rajasthan whereby it was directed that the amount of Rs. 1000/-, advanced to the respondent No. 4 Keshavdeo Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Bichpuri may not be recovered from him, nor any action be taken against him, under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953.2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. The respondent No. 4 Keshavdeo by virtue of being the Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti, Bichpuri became a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Khandar. He also held the office of Chairman, Agricultural Standing Committee of the said Panchayat Samiti. On 6.1.1960 seven villagers of village Bichpuri made an application before the Panchayat Samiti Khandar for grant of aid of Rs. 1500/- for construction of a well in Khasra Nos. 82, 83 and 84 and on this application Keshavdeo sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1000/- on 9.1.1960. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Kesari Lal Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1976
Reported in: 1977WLN443
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. This petition has been filed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue against the proceedings under Ceiling law which were started against one Smt. Chandrakanta under Chapter IIIB added to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955 (hereinafter to be called the 'old law').2. The land was originally recorded in the name of one Smt. Gulab Bai, who had adopted Govindlal, son of petitioner No. 1. After the death of Smt. Gulab Bai, the land was recorded in the name of Govindlal and after his death, in the name of Smt. Chandrakanta, who was recorded as the Khatedar tenant. Since she was holding the land in excess of the ceiling area, notices were issued to her and the present petitioners joined the proceedings and claimed one fourth share in favour of each of the three petitioners and one-fourth share in favour of Ram Narain, another son of Keshari lal. An effort was made before the authorities to contend that the petitioners were in possession of the land since 1957 on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Bahirumal Basdev Vs. Lalit Kishore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj244
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated May 2, 1975, in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent.2. The dispute relates to a shop situate at Kota and fully described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff-respondent, who is a practising lawyer at Kota, sought eviction of the defendant on the ground that the disputed shop was required by him bona fide and reasonably for his office. Both the courts below decreed the suit against the defendant holding that the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff under Section 13(1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was proved. Dissatisfied with the decree passed by the lower appellate court, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.3. On September 29, 1975, Section 14 of the Act was amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Evicti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »