Rajasthan Court October 1978 Judgments
Manji Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)366
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application-in-revision filed by Manji through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Banswara, dated 27th July, 1977, by which his conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred-to as the Act, were upheld and maintained. It will not be out of place to mention that Manji was tried for the offence of selling adulterated milk of she buffalo and found guilty thereof by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Banswara who, on his conviction, sentenced him to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The prosecution care against Manji petitioner was as follows : On 15th February, 1974, Gauri Shanker, Food Inspector, Banswara, inspected the milk of the petitioner at about 7p.m. on Mala Road in front of the hotel of Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Gopilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj74
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. The petitioner was elected as sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Udaipura Tehsil Sikrai District Jaipur. On 10th Feb. 1978, he was administered oath of the office of Sarpanch. Respondents Nos. 3 to 12 are the Panchas of the above Gram Panchayat duly elected. Respondents Nos. 13 and 14 are the members of the Gram Panchayat by co-option. A vote of no confidence was passed by the Panchas in a meeting held on 23rd Sept. 1978. Out of 13 Panchas 11 Panchas voted in favour of the no-confidence motion and two panchas, out of whom, one was the sarpanch himself, voted against the no confidence motion. Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma, Officiating Tehsildar, Sikrai, who presided over the meeting, declared the no confidence motion to be passed against the petitioner. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the motion of no confidence passed in the meeting held on 23rd Sept. 1978. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Heerachand and Jayantilal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)401
M.L. Joshi, Actg. C.J.1. This revision petition Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, dated September 20, 1973, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1972, whereby he held the petitioners guilty Under Section 323 I.P.C. and released them after due admonition.2. The charge against the accused-petitioners was that they, on May 24, 1968, at about 8 a.m, in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, consisting of the 5 accused persons, they entered in the house of Magraj and committed the offence of rioting, which was punishable under Section 147 I.P.C. The second charge against both the petitioners was that on May 24, 1968, at abo it 8 a m., they having in pursuance of common object of unlawful assembly prepared themselves for giving beating to Magh Raj, entered into the house of Magh Raj and thus committed offence which was punishable Under Section 452 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate convicted ...
Tag this Judgment!Harikishan and Vijaysingh Mansinghka Vs. Shri Mahadeo Cotton Mills Ltd ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)518
M.L. Joshi, Actg. C.J.1. Heard Mr. A.L. Mehta the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Maheshwari, the learned Counsel for the Caveator. This Court by its order dated 21st of January, 1977, directed the appellant that the petition for winding up shall be advertised by publication in the Rajasthan Rajpatra and so also in a daily paper of English, The Hindustan Times and in a daily paper of Hindi viz. the Rajasthan Patrika and the date was fixed as 19.4 1977. No steps were taken in compliance of the order dated 21st of January, 1977. The case came up before the learned Single Judge on 22nd of April, 1977 From the perusal of the record it appears that till that day no steps were taken in that behalf which fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant before us. The case was fixed for 3rd of May, 1977; on which date the Bench was not formed. It is not the case of the appellant that by that date steps for requisite advertisement were taken on behalf of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. JaIn and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)472
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. A case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with the Rajasthan Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1974 is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur against the petitioners since 1975. The only point involved in the case is whether it was necessary for the petitioners to have obtained licences under, the Rajasthan Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1974 and whether they are guilty for any offence for violation of any provisions of the above Order According to the prosecution the petitioners Shri D.K. Jain and Hansh Bhagi were employees of M/s Mukul Trading (P) Ltd. & M/s Bharat Overseas (P) Ltd. respectively, which according to the prosecution were stockists of cement. These two petitioners have already left the jobs under the above concerns and it is stated that the petitioner D.K. Jain is presently employed with Messrs Roadmaster Industries at Ghaziabad and Rajpjra in Haryana and petitioner Harish Bhagi is doing his ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN535
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. In this petition, trader Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the State of Rajasthan, petitioner herein, seeks to challenge the order dated 17th December, 1971, whereby the Central Government in exercise of Its powers under Rule 54 & 55 of the 'Mineral Concession Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the 1960, Rules), set aside the order of the State Government dated 2nd July, 1970 and directed the State Government to re-examine the matter in the light of the finding of the Central Government contained in the impugned order dated 17th December, 1971.2. On 1st November, 1937 a mining lease for mica over an area measuring about 300 Sq. miles was granted to Shri Govind Ram Sakseria for a period of 5 years is by the then State of Mewar. Before the expiry of the term of said lease, the rights of the lessee were transferred in favour of Shri Pusalal Mansinghka, respondent No. 2. herein. The term of the lease was extended for a further period of 10 years upto 31-10-1952 b...
Tag this Judgment!Matoria Bus Service Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)431
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. M/s Matoria Bus Service (Private) Registered, the petitioner in all these writ petitions, is a partnership firm carrying on business of motor transport and it holds non-temporary stage carriage permits in respect of certain routes and for that purpose it owns a number of buses. The Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959, thereinafter referred to as the Act. provides for levying of tax on passengers and goods carried by road in motor vehicles Section 6 of the Act provides for submission of returns by the owner of a motor vehicle at such intervals and to such authority as may be prescribed and Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act provides for imposition of penalty in cases where an owner fails, without reasonable cause, to submit any return or pay the tax due according to such return within 15 days of the due date. The Rajasthan Passengers & Goods Taxation Rules, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which have been made in exercise of the powers c...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Chand Vs. Chuhar Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)349
K.D. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. I.C. Maloo, learned Counsel for the petitioner & Mr. M.L. Chhangani, appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and perused the record of the trial court. Upon perusal of the record, it has come to my notice that the learned Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, committed a grave error of law in discharging the accused in this case on the ground of absence of the complainant. Section 259, old Cr.P.C. applied to cases where the offeace charged was a compoundable oar or was not a cognizable offence, Where the offence was neither compoundable, nor cognizable, the provisions of Section 259, old Cr.P.C. were not attracted. In the instant case, criminal proceedings under Sections 419 and 420, IPC were instituted upon complaint against the accused non-petitioner. The offences under Sections 419 and 420, IPC were cognizable offences and were not compoundable without the permission of the court and, therefore, the learned Magistrate should have exercised his d...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Lal and Magan Behari Lal Vs. the State of Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN651
K.D. Sharma, J.1. As common questions of facts and law are involved in these two writ petitions, they are disposed of together by a common order.2. The facts stated in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 524 of 78 Gauri Lal v. The State and Ors. are as follows : Gaurilal petitioner obtained a licence from the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur Under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Liquor Prohibition Rules 1967, (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Rules), for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor for the financial year 1970-71 The licence was renewed every year by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition, in accordance with the said rules. The last renewal was upto March 31, 1978 After the expiry of the term of the renewed licence, the petitioner presented an application on February 20, 1978, for further renewal thereof He deposited in the Government Treasury, Banswara, a sum of Rs 3500/-, as fees for the renewal. The State Government brought about an increase in the fees for th...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)529
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The appellant, Sant Lal, has been convicted by learned Special Judge, Ajmer, and sentenced under Section 161 I.P.C. and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/-or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution, which resulted in the conviction & sentence of the appellant, as aforementioned, is that while posted as Head Constable in Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Ajmer, on 24-8 1971 he accepted from Ram Lal P.W. a sum of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification for showing favour by admitting Bhanwarlal P.W. to bail. A case under Section 332 & 353 I.P.C. had been registered against Bhanwarlal & others with the police station Sadar Kotwali, Ajmer at the instance of one Vishnudatt Sharma, a Food Inspector, on August 23, 1971. The S.H Or...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »