Rajasthan Court September 1976 Judgments
Bhimsen Vs. the State of Rajastan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ696
V.P. Tyagi C.J.1. Convict Bhimsen has sent this application through the Jail authority praying that the period of detention already undergone by him during the investigation and trial be given a set off against the sentence for life imprisonment awarded to him.2. Section 428 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure has made a provision for giving a set off for a period detention already undergone by the accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial, but according to this provision this set off can be allowed only when the accused has been sentenced to an imprisonment for a term. In the present case the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh : 1976CriLJ1192 , has determined this question whether imprisonment for life can be treated as one for a term of 20 years. The learned Judges have observed as follows:A sentence for life would enure till the lifetime of the accused as it is not possible to fix a particular period...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Bai and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN629
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application in-revision filed by Ganga Bai, widow, Kamla and Devi, Daughters of Durga Dass deceased, appellant, against an order passed by the Session Judge, Pali. dated 16th October 1975, by which the appeal filed by Durg Dass under Section 520, old Cr.P.C. was held to have abated on the death 6f the appellant.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition maybe, briefly stated, as follows Durga Das deceased lodged a written report with the police at police station, Pali, on 18 June, 1937. If was alleged in the report that one Mangi Ram being a relative of Durga Das was allowed to stay at his house as a guest. On the day of the 'Amavashya' at about 5 am Durga Das and his wife Ganga Bai left their house for passing stool in a nearby jungle. When they returned after sometimes, they did not find their guest Mangiram in the house. A suspicion arose in their minds on account of absence of Mangi Ram, Hence, they tried to find out whether any article...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN624
V.P. Tyagi Actg. C.J.1. This appeal of Ram Lal is direct against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kota dated 1-12-1971, whereby tie accused was convicted of the charge under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Omprakash and Ram Narain.2. The charge against the accused was that on May 31, 1971 at about 12 A.M. the accused came from his village Ganeshpura to village Humav which was situated at a distance of hardly 2 furlongs from his village He was armed with kulhari. The accused sister Kalyani used to live in village Humav. Kalyani when saw her brother coming with a kulhari in his hand rushed back to her house. Omprakash a boy of 8 years came across the accused in a lane. It is said that accused Ram Lal dealt a kulhari blow on the head of Omprakash with the result that he died of that injury. He them entered the house of Ram Narain who was ailing and sitting on his cot. The accused gave a kulhari blow on the head of Ram Narain also and then ran away with his axe to h...
Tag this Judgment!Jasraj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj150; 1976(9)WLN589
ORDERRanjindar Sachar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the notification issued by the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan dated 21-11-1975 by which it has cancelled its earlier notification dated 12-11-1975 by which the State had in exercise of its power under Section 48(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be called the 'Act') had withdrawn the land of the petitioner from acquisition as declared in Section 6 notification dated 24-11-1973.2. The petitioners are the owners and occupiers of land on Kila Nos. 1 to 5 of square No. 36, situate in Chak 3-E, District Sri Ganganagar. The State of Rajasthan published a notification D/- 18-1-1971 under Section 4 (1) of the Act, proposing to acquire the land for public purpose for extension of Abadi Ganganagar. The notification was published in the Government Gazette of 16-12-1971. Amongst others it included the petitioner's land in Kila No. 36. A further notification dated 24-11-...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Lal Vs. Daulat Ram Mulk Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Raj254; 1976(9)WLN531
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, against the order of Additional District Judge, Bundi, dated June 9, 1976.2. Respondent Messrs Daulat Ram Mulk Raj, a partnership firm, moved a petition in the court of Additional District Judge, Bundi, under Section 7 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for adjudging the appellant to be an insolvent.3. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that the court of Additional District Judge, Bundi, has no jurisdiction to entertain an insolvency petition under the Act. This objection was overruled by the learned Additional District Judge, Bundi, on the basis of the order of the District Judge, Kota, dated June 14, 1968, by which the District Judge, Kota, in exercise of his powers conferred upon him under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, ordered that all suits, appeals and applications arising w...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Bahree Vs. Om Pradash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)563
M.L. Jain, J.1. Non-petitioner Om Prakash filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, on 4-10-74 against R.C. Bahree and Har Bhajan Singh Bhattal, under Sections 166, 167, 218 and 120B I.P.C. He alleged that he was a drillman in the employment of the Hindustan Copper Ltd., and is an active member of the Workers' Union, namely, Rashtriya Khetri Tamba Project Mazdoor Sangh. There is a rival union Tamba Sharamik Sangh which enjoys official patronage. The accused who are officers of the company were determined to destroy the union to which the complainant belonged. On 5-5-73 the complainant was beaten by the drill operator. He submitted a report of this beating to the Drilling Engineer but no action was taken. On the other hand, a charge-sheet was issued against the complainant for beating & for disobeying the operator. He was instructed to regularly report at the main gate barrier and sign a register for suspended workmen available with the security staff. This dire...
Tag this Judgment!Malamsingh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ730; 1976(9)WLN547
ORDERM.L. Jain, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has arisen in the following circumstances:Petitioners 1 to 6 are Khatedar tenants of Khasra Nos. 120 and 229 in village Setrawa which they had purchased on 29-3-73 from petitioners Nos. 8 and 9 Nain Singh and Kushal Singh for Rs. 3,000/- by a registered sale deed. This land at one time was the khudkasht land of Ajit Singh and Kushal Singh. On resumption of Jagirs they became khatedar tenants and had been so recorded in the revenue record from Samvat year 2013. In Samvat year 2028 Ajit Singh executed a will in favour of Nain Singh petitioner No. 8 in respect of his share in the aforesaid khasra numbers. After the death of Ajit Singh in Samvat year 2028 Nain Singh became the joint khatedar with Kushal Singh. It is how that the lands were sold by them to the petitioners and put in their possession.2. Hamir Singh claimed that he was an adopted son of Ajit Singh and he claimed the aforesaid land to be entirely his even to the exc...
Tag this Judgment!Chella Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ589; 1976(9)WLN605
ORDERKalyan Dutta, J.1. This is an application-in-revision filed by Chella alias Chela Ram against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, dated 8th May, 1976, whereby setting off of the period of detention undergone by the petitioner during the investigation, inquiry or trial of each of the three cases against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on conviction in the same case was refused and the reference made by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, on the question of extending benefit under Section 428, Criminal P.C. (new) to each case separately was answered accordingly.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision-petition may be briefly stated as follows:Chella petitioner was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, in three sessions cases Nos. 3 of 1968, 4 of 1968 and 5 of 1968 for offences punishable under Sections 392, 394, 397, 380, I.P.C. The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No....
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Pooran Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1055; 1976(9)WLN643
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this appeal are that there is a Bakli Dam in District Jalore. The contract of fishing in the said Dam was auctioned in the name of Kalyan Singh complainant on 13-9-1968, According to the Rajasthan Fisheries Act, 1953, and the rules made thereunder, fishing is prohibited from 1st July, to 15th September of each year. Kalyan Singh had deposited one-fourth of the amount but the licence was issued in his name on 24-10-1968. According to the licence, Kalyan Singh was authorised to catch fish in the said tank from 24-10-1968 to 30-6-1969. It is alleged that accused Pooran Singh caught fish in the said tank on 20-9-1968. He along with other co-accused was caught by Kalyan Singh with the help of the Chowkidars., A truck containing 15 maunds of fish was also caught. Jalim Singh Patwari P.W. 6 lodged a report of the occurrence. The police recovered the fish and produced them before the Magistrate who directed them to be destroyed. The police forwarded 9 accused perso...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Krishna and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj131
Sen, J.1. The short question which arises for determination in this special appeal against the order of J. P. Jain, J., dated 28-9-1973 is, whether the learned single Judge was right in holding that (1) the writ petition filed by the appellants barred by the rule of constructive res judicata and (2) it could not be entertained due to inordinate delay and laches on their part.2. It is common ground that the appellants had previously filed writ petition No. 1384 of 1971 on identically the same facts, claiming the same reliefs viz. for quashing the notifications issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under Sections 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 dated 17-10-1963 and 7-1-1971 for tine acquisition of village Rampura Roopa for the Jainpir Improvement Trust for public purpose i.e. for the planned development of Jaipur City under the Lal Kothi Scheme.3. That petition of theirs was heard on merits along with Writ Petitions Nos. 538 and 546 of 1971 by Tyagi, J. on 23-2-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »