Rajasthan Court January 1978 Judgments
Doongar Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)167
K.D. Sharma, J.1. Doongar Mal Kothari has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of an application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in the court of the Sessions Judge, Balotra, Under Section 466, IPC. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that upon coming into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure the Sessions Judge is precluded from taking cognizance of any offence of forgery denned in Section 463, or punishable under Sections 471 or 475 or 476, IPC except on the complaint in writing of the court in a proceeding of which the offence has been committed in respect of the document produced or given in evidence.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. may be briefly stated as follows. One Ratti Ram son of Koja Ram resident of Jasol filed an application Under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in he ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Saddique Hazi HussaIn Firm Vs. Nemichand Chunni Lal JaIn and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN88
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dated July 5, 1973 by which he restored the Civil Misc. Case No. 5 of 1965, in respect of proceedings under Order 38 Rule 5, C.P.C., to its original number and directed that further enquiry be made in those proceedings. The argument which prevailed with the learned judge was that Civil Misc. Case No. 5 of 1965 was consigned to record on October 28, 1970 without passing any final order and as such those proceedings should be revived.2. I am constrained to observe that the learned Additional District Judge did not at all appreciate the nature of the proceedings tinder Order 38 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Cede. Under Older 38, Rule 5, the Court is empowered, at any stage of a suit, to direct the defendant either to furnish security in such sum as may be specified in the order or to produce and place at the disposal of the court, when required, the said property or ...
Tag this Judgment!Gahlot Engineering Wine Store Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj14; 1978(11)WLN5
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J.1. All the petitioners were licensees for vending foreign liquor as retailers for Bali Tehsil for the financial year 1977-1978 commencing from the 1st of April, 1977 and ending on the 31st of March, 1978. In exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (Rajasthan Act 17 of 1969) in short the Prohibition Act, the State Govt. by a notification dated 20th of Oct. 1977 extended the provisions of the Prohibition Act to the area covered by Tehsil Bali with effect from the 1st of Dec. 1977. By another notification of the same date it has been notified that from the 1st of Oct. 1977, it would not be permissible for any one to either possess liquor or to transport it or to import it. All the petitioners have been served with notice issued by Excise Commissioner stating therein that as the State Government is introducing prohibition in the area covered by Tehsil Bali by extending the Prohibition Act from the 1st of Dec....
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Kariman Bai and ors. Vs. Laxman Lal Ram Pratap, Kota
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj120; 1978(11)WLN28
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Kota dated 5th Dec. 1977.2. At the time of arguments regarding the admission of the revision petition. Mr. Shishodia put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, and opposed the admission of the revision petition, The learned counsel for the parties requested that the file of the appeal filed by Mst. Kariman Bai & Others, which is pending before this Court, may also be called for and perused. Accordingly, the file S. B. C. First Appeal No. 102 of 1974 was called for and perused.3. Relevant facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition, are that the plaintiff non-petitioner M/s. Laxman Lal Ram Pratap filed a suit for realisation of the mortgage amount against the petitioner. The trial Court, on 13th Feb. 1974, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs, 15,000/- with interest and costs. The judgment-debtor thereafter filed an appeal bearing No. S. B. Civil First App...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. Mahendar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN365
S.K.M. Lodha, J.1. These are two revision petitions by the defendant directed against the order of the Munsif City Jodhpur dated 20-1-1978 by which he has ordered that the pleas taken in paras Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional written statement put in by the defendant in answer to the amended plaint be ignored The question involved in both the revisions is common. I, therefore, propose to decide them by a common judgment.2. I may state the facts leading to S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 92 of 1978. The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-petitioner in the court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur, on May 18, 1976 It was stated in para 8 of the plaint that the defendant petitioner had paid rent upto Posh Sudi Poonam, Samvat 2024. The suit was brought for the recovery of the rent and damages for use and occupation in respect of 36 months. It was also stated that if the defendant petitioner wants to take benefit of the provisions of th...
Tag this Judgment!Anokha Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)1
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a revision-petition filed by Anokha Singh against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated 1st December, 1977, by which his conviction and sentence under Section 54(a) of the Rajasthan. Excise Act, hereinafter referred-to as the Act, were upheld and maintained. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sir Gangangar, for having been found in possession of a rubber tube containing illicit liquor in the quantity of about 20 bottles. The trial court concluded the trial and convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was fellows : On 15th April, 1973, at about 1 p.m. Mangal Singh, Excise Inspector, saw Anokha Singh petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Mobanlal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)10
K.D. Sharma, J.1. Mohan Lal and Ratanlal have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by wav of an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing an order of the Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera, District Chittorgah, dated 7th November, 1977, where by he took cognizance of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC against the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrant for enforcing their attendance in the court.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated as follows : On 5th July, 1977, at about 5 PM Udairam son of Kaluji Chamar resident of village Intadia lodged a verbal report of murder at the police station, Kanera. It was alleged in the report that in the morning of July 5, 1977, the two petitioners along with their companions seven in number went to field of Hira Lal and picked-up a quarrel with the latter over the possession of the field. The petitioner and their associates were armed with weapons known as 'Paraniyas' in ve...
Tag this Judgment!Jomna Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN10
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a jail appeal filed by Jomna against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, dated 12th January, 1977, where by he was convicted under Section 304 Part 11, IPC and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution case against the appellant was as follows : Jomna appellant and his wife Mst. Roopli had gone to the house Lachmana for cutting crops they were invited by Lachmana to do this work. Both the appellant and his wife staved at the house of Lachmana in his village. During their stay Moti's wife breathed her, last. On hearing the news of her death the appellant's father Ranchor started from his village for condolence & reached the house of Lachmana in the evening of the 6-10-76. Besides Ranchor some other guests, namely, Ratna, Babla, Bathia and Jawa also visited the house of Lachmana who serve...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN16
R.L. Gupta, J.1. The appellant Ghanshyam has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, by his judgment dated 9-3-1977, under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Pukhraj and sentenced to imprisonment for life and under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for having voluntarily caused hurt to PW 12 Parasmal with a sharp edged weapon and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. According to the prosecution, on 30-1-1971 at about 3 p.m., the appellant Ghanshyam along with his two brothers Vijairaj alias Vijai Kishan and Vasudeo and their two companions Mahesh and Roop Kishore assaulted the deceased Pukhraj with 'pharsis' and knives, while he came to the rescue of his son PW 12 Parasmal, who was being assaulted by them with their weapons. As a result of the murderous assault, the deceased Pukhraj fell down unconscious. He along with his son Parasmal PW 12, was taken to the Government Dispensary,...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lal and anr. Vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN31
ORDERP.D. Kudal, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City dated 8th Dec. 1976.2. The brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, are that the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City filed a suit against Makhan Lal, Rajmal and Kailash Narain for declaration and possession. The suit was valued at Rs. 10,000/-. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statements on 25th March, 1976, while the defendant No. 3 filed his written statement on 3rd April, 1976, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 raised issue that the valuation of the suit property is Rs. 50,000/-, while the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 10,000/-. It was, therefore, contended that the court-fee paid is insufficient and that if the suit is valued at Rs. 50,000/-, then the subject-matter of the suit is liable to be tried by the District Judge, and the Additional Civil Judge will have no ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »