Rajasthan Court August 1976 Judgments
Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN478
P.D. Kudal, J.1. The accused appellant Ram Swaroop has filed this appeal from Jail against his conviction dated January 23. 1973, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur. The learned Additional Sessions judge has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution story is that one Hukam Singh, deceased, accompanied his sitter Shiv Devi, on 26-4-1970, to the bus-stand, at about mid day. Smt. Shiv Devi was going to her father-in-law's place, and as such, was wearing the ornaments. The accused-appellant Ram Swarorp met them at the Bus-station. He offered a 'laddu' to the deceased Hukam Singh stating that it was a 'prasad'. Hukam Singh ate the 'laddu'. As the bus bad arrived at that time, Mst. Shiv Devi boarded the bus. In the meantime, another brother Budhi of Mst. Shiv Devi also came there. Ms. Shiv Devi lef...
Tag this Judgment!Bherulal Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj29; 1976(9)WLN458
ORDERRajindar Sachar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 the petitioners challenges the impugned resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur respondent 2 dated 28-6-1976 granting a temporary stage carriage permit in favour of respondent 3 as well as the order dated 2-8-1976 of the Stale Transport Appellate Tribunal respondent 1 which rejected the revision of the petitioner as not maintainable. 2. There is a route known as Bhil-wara-Jahazpur via Bigod-Kachola diversion via Paged Mandalgarh. Originally the scope fixed on this route was of 3 stage carriages to perform 2 return trips. The Regional Transport Authority sought to increase it to 5 stage carriages to perform 3 return trips in the year 1970 buta revision against that was allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which maintaining the increase of return trips to 3 but reduced the increased scope of stage carriages from 5 to 4. The scope thus fixed on the route came to be 4 stage carriages to perform 3 re...
Tag this Judgment!Rajoo and ors. Vs. State of Rajastan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ837
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Thirteen accused persons viz. Raju, Ocarina, Serial, Ghewaria, Moti, Jairam, Hanuman arid six other accused (acquitted by the trial court) were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. No. 1, Jodhpur in connection with an occurrence which took place on March 26. 1975. In the course of that occurrence, the 'Jhumpa' of P.W..4 Kesia was set to fire; and P.W. 1 Dhanrii, P.W. 2 Dalla. P.W. 3 Kisturi, P.W, 4 Kesia, P.W. 5 Sohanki, P.W. 6 Khinwada were injured at the hands of the accused. The learned Judge acquitted all the accused of all the charges, punishable under Sections 148 and 452 IP.C, He convicted the accused-appellant Raju under Section 436 I.P.C., and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/; in default of the payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. In addition to that he was convicted under Sections 323 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C, and was sentenced to six mon...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Veena Lodha Vs. Narendra Mal Lodha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj134; 1976(9)WLN420
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. This application wherein a show cause notice was given to the non-petitioner comes up for admission.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.3. It is contended that the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, has no jurisdiction to try the petition under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act as such petition could only be tried by the principal court of original jurisdiction, namely, the District Court, Jodhpur. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that unless there is a notification of the State Government published in the official gazette authorising any other Civil Court to try the matters under the Hindu Marriage Act, the District Court is the only competent Court to try such matters. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Kuldipsingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 391 and Janak Dulari v. Narain Das, AIR 1959 Punj 50.4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Narayanee and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)401
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this petition are that Badri Narain Suthar reported to the police on 15.11.74 that his sister Deoki who was married to Bhanwar Lal was burnt alive by her mother in-law Kaiki and sister-in-law Narayanee on 6.11.74. She was admitted to the hospital in Phalodi but she was discharged from there and thereafter died. The police registered a case under Sections 302 and 501 I.P.C. hut after investigation submitted only a final report. This final report came up for consideration before the Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi on 19.4.75. Before giving any order on the final report, the learned Magistrate thought it proper to examine and accordingly recorded the statements of as many as 15 witnesses and then by his order dated 6.12.75, he refused to accept the final report made by the police and instead took cognizance under Section 302 I.P.C. against Mst. Narayanee rod Kaiki and under Sections 176 and 201 I.P.C. against Bhanwar Lal and four others. Before the Magistrate cou...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ68; 1976(9)WLN377
S.N. Modi, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kota, dated January 29, 1973, convicting and sentencing Janardan Prasad. the appellant, to life imprisonment for the murder of Mool Chand.2. The incident, to which this case relates, took place in Kota on April 14, 1972 at about 1.15 p.m. at the shop of P.W. 9 Gopi Chand. On the date of the incident, the appellant was holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. At about 12 noon on that day, the appellant, the deceased and P.W. 10 K.P. Mehta assembled at the shop of P.W. 9 Gopi Chand, and all of them including Gopi Chand commenced taking drinks. The appellant had a revolver Ex. 1 with him in a leather case. He took out the revolver Ex. ]. from the leather case. He loaded it with cartridges and commenced cleaning it. Soon thereafter, all of a sudden, a report of a gun fire was heard and Mool Chand, the deceased, who was sitting in front of the appellant on a bench, fell down on the ground and died instantaneou...
Tag this Judgment!Mangu and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN448
M.L. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated April 26, 1972, by which he convicted and sentenced each of the appellants as follows:(1) Under Section 304 part II read with Section 149 IPC, to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a time of Rs. 300/- in default whereof to rigorous imprisonment for two months.(2) Under Section 148 IPC, to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 100/- in default whereof to rigorous imprisonment for one month,(3) Under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100/ in default whereof to rigorous imprisonment for one month.The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.2. I have seen the record and beard the arguments. The prosecution case is that in village, Prempura, there is a well known as Hanuman Sagar' and the land thereof is known as 'Guwarwala (sic). On 11-1-71, at about noon, Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Rawat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj72; 1976(9)WLN467
ORDERRajindar Sachar, J. 1. The Legislature of Rajas-than has passed the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'). The object for which the Act has been passed is to constitute a Corporation for the execution of projects relating to land development with a view to preventing damage to land and loss in agricultural productivity and to securing optimum utilisation of land and water resources in the State of Rajasthan and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.2. Section 2(e) defines 'competent authority' to mean any authority empowered under the relevant law to require execution of works by land holders or to execute or get the works executed. The 'relevant law' is defined in Section 2 (p) to mean the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act and certain other Acts relating to land development for the time being in force in the State of Rajasthan. Section 2 (j) defines 'land development' to mean amongst others construction, re...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Vs. Smt. Geeta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)318
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is an appeal by the husband in a proceeding for divorce instituted by the wife under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.2. The marriage of the respondent Smt. Geeta was solemnised with the appellant some 12 or 13 years back at village Tikholi according to the Hindu rites. The appellant thereafter married one Mst. Misri. The respondent wife thereupon filed a petition for grant of a decree for divorce against the appellant, her husband, on the ground of adultery. The appellant admitted having married Mst. Misri but contested the petition on the ground that he married Mst. Misri with the consent of the respondent. It was also alleged that the respondent condoned the adulterous living of the appellant with Mst. Misri. The learned Additional District Judge, Tonk on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:(1) Whether the non petitioner (Prabhu) has been living in adultery with Mst. Misri?(2) Whether the non-petitioner (Prabbu) bad contracte...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Chand and anr. Vs. Girraj Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj38; 1976(9)WLN416
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant-tenants against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gangapur city, dated August 9, 1974, affirming the decree for eviction passed in favour of the plaintiff-landlord by the Munsiff, Bharatpur, on the ground of sub-letting.2. The plaintiff-landlord sought eviction of the defendants from the shop situated at Bharatpur and fully described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, on the ground of default in payment of rent as also on the ground that the defendants had deteriorated the value of the shop by non-user for a period of more than two years. Subsequently, one more ground for eviction was added by amendment of the plaint. It was alleged in the amended plaint, that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant-appellants sub-let the shop in dispute some time in the month of February, 1971 to Pannalal Bharti, who carried on business at the suit shop under the name and style of Bharatpur Tent House. The defendants contested...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »