Rajasthan Court April 1977 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chandra Dutt Vs. Sunder Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)98
M.L. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi dated 19-7-75.2. The respondent Sunderlal and two others filed a suit against the petitioner Chandra Dutta for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. In the notice dated 15-12-75, terminating the tenancy, nr mention was made of the rent note. In the plaint that was presented on 4-8-73, it was mentioned that the rent note was not available inspite of search. In the list of documents it was stated that the rent note will be produced when discovered. Upon a direction by the court, the plaintiff gave the particulars as respects the scribe, the (sic) witnesses and the stamp vendor. He also applied for permission to lead secondary evidence. It was objected to by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff must first be required to prove the existence and loss of the document before he could be allowed to lead secondary evidence.3. The learned trial Judge held that the requ...
Ghamanda Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)109
M.L. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned additional Sessions Judge No. I, Jodhpur by which he convicted and sentenced the appellants six in number as follows:1. Ghamnda Ram under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to rigorous imprisonment for one month and under Section 148 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.2. Moola Ram, Khuma Ram, Phusa Ram, Bhana Ram and Govind Singh under Section 302, read with 149 IPC, to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to rigorous imprisonment for one month and under Section 147 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for one year.3. Govind Singh also under Section 325 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.4. Khuma Ram and Bhana Ram also under Section 323 IPC; to rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently. We have heard arguments and p...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj203; 1977()WLN139
ORDERRajindar Sachar, J. 1. The Parliament has framed the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, (to be hereafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957'). The Act of 1957 divides the minerals into major minerals and minor minerals. Section 15 of the Act of 1957 empowers the State Governments to make rules regulating the grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. The Rajasthan State, under the powers given to it by the Act of 1957, has framed the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1959'). Rule 20 of the Rules of 1959 empowers the grant of lease of a minor mineral by public auction.2. Rule 36 of the Rules of 1959 provides the procedure for holding auction for the grant of mining a minor mineral lease. Sub-clause (5) of Rule 36 of the Rules of 1959 provides that no bids should be regarded as accepted unless confirmed by the Government or the competent a...
Mangal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)243
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, dated September 4, 1976, where by the accts d appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 368 and 373 I.P.C. to three years' and five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count, in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count.2. Accused Mangal Singh and Naresh were tried for offences of buying and obtaining possession of minor girls Km. Shanti alias Sharda and Km. Radha for the purpose of prostitution and for wrongful selling or keeping them in confinement and for voluntarily causing hurt. Accused Naresh was further charged for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. for committing rape on Km. Radha.3. The salient facts pertaining to this case are that on November 1, 1974, PW 5 Shri Prahlad Singh S.H.O. Police Station, Saipau was going to village Kolua in connection with anti-dacoity duties The two ...
Ravindra Sahai Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)375
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge for AGD cases,' Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated December 19. 1974 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 161, IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 100/-. in default of payment of line to undergo one week's simple imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-, ltd in default of payment of fine to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The brief facts of the case are that in October, 1972 the accused, Ravindra Sahai Saxena was posted as Assistant Fishery Development Officer, Karauli. The Fisher Department gives licenses to the con tractors, for catching fish subject to certain conditions The relevant conditions are that during the close season, that is, from 15th of Jun...
Ganga Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ269; 1977()WLN218
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J.1. S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 64l of 1975, filed by Ganga Singh and S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 1975 preferred by Kishan Dan through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, arise out of one and the same Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, dated 30th June, 1975, by which both the appellants were convicted Under Sections 394/397, 436 and 170, IPC and sentenced as under :-Ganga singh 394/397, Rigorous imprisonKishan Dan I.P.C. ment for ten years each.' 436. Five years' rigorousI.P.C. imprisonment each.' 170. One year's rigorousI.P.C. imprisonment each.All the sentences awarded to each appellant were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case against the appellants was that they along with two other persons reached village Amlari on 5-5-1971 at about 5 p.m. They were wearing police uniforms on their bodies and were armed with deadly weapons, i. e, guns, pistols etc. In the village they met Hazari Mai, who was going to his house for a ba...
Dhanna and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj163; 1977()WLN96
Sachar, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, dated January 31, 1'970, by which it held that the appeal of the petitioners had abated, and has dismissed the appeal without giving a decision on merits.2. One Hanuman Prasad predecessor-in-interests of respondents Nos. 2 to 9 filed a suit claiming that he was a Khatedar tenant and seeking a declaration of the same and seeking possession of the suit land. The suit was resisted by Ram Bux, the father of the petitioner No. 1 and respondents Nos. 14 to 16, and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and by one Ratna. Suit of he respondents Nos. 2 to 9 was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, but on appeal, it succeeded before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who by order dated July 29, 1964, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs against the defendants for a declaration that the plaintiffs be declared Khatedar tenant of Khasra Nos. 1019/1 and 1020/1. Thereafter the defe...
Bhawani Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN273
D.P. Gupta, J.1.The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Sildar in Tahsil Sirohi. The total strength of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat as fixed by the State Government is 13 Panchas, besides a Sarpanch. On July 28, 1971, eight of the Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Sildar gave notice of a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner in respect of the office of Sarpanch. The aforesaid notice of no-confidence was addressed to the Collector, Sirohi & the case of the petitioner is that it was presented by the eight Panchas before the Collector, Sirohi. It appears that the Collector forwarded the aforesaid notice of motion of no-confidence to the Deputy District Development Officer, (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.D.D.O.,) Sirohi who was the competent authority in the matter and the D.D.D.O. on receiving the aforesaid notice of motion of no-confidence, called a special meeting of the Panchayat on September 13, 1971 for con...
Jamnadas Vs. Panchayat Samiti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)476
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was supplied fertilizers by the Panchayat Samiti, Mirzewala (now Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar) in the year 1960 for sale to the agriculturists and certain sum of money remained cut standing against the petitioner in that matter. On April 5, 1969, the petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebteness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for determination of his debts. However, in the aforesaid application it was mentioned by the petitioner that the amount due against him in respect of the claim of the Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar was barred by time and that the time barred debt against the petitioner was not realisable from, him. The Panchayat Samiti in its reply took the defence that the amount outstanding against the petitioner did not come within the definition of 'debt' as given in the Act and as such the application filed be the petitioner under Section6 of the Act was not ...
Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN138
P.D. Kudal, J.1. Accused-appellant Ashok Kumar has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated January 19, 1977.2. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant was heard, and the appeal has been admitted for hearing.3. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has presented an application for compromise under Section 320, Cr. P.C. 1973, The injured Kamlesh Gupta and her father appeared before the Court and prayed that the compromise prayed for may be allowed.4. Notice of this application was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. He states that the State has no objection if the permission to compound the offence is granted. In the compromise petition it has been contended that with a view to promote healthy relations. between the parties and their family members it would be in the interests of justice if the permission to compound the offence is given.5. I have carefully perused the judgment and considered the contentions of the le...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »