Rajasthan Court December 1978 Judgments
Kailash Raj Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)455
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Kailashraj, who was convicted for an offence under Section 326 I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur by his order dated August 6, 1974 and was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25/- for the aforesaid offence & in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment.2. According to the prosecution case, on February 28, 1972, which was the 'Holi day' Kailashraj and Mahendrasingh accused and Madanlal and Mithulal and several other persons had gone to Ashoka Picture Cinema Hall at Udaypur for seing the picture 'Gopi', which was being exhibited in that Hall on the aforesaid day. A quarrel took place between them out-side the ticket window and in the scuffle Kailashraj halleged to have stabbed Madanlal with a knife, while Mahendrasingh is said to have stabbed Mithulal. Both the insured persons, Madanlal and Mithulal were removed to the General Hospital, Udaypur and the First Info...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Narayan and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)501
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Laxmi Narayan alias Laxman and Mst. Sayari against the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pali, dated Jan 22, 1974, by which the two appellants were convicted & sentenced to imprisonment and fine as follows:Laxmi Narayan under Section 366, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default 1 month's further R.I. under Section 376, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default 1 month's further R.I.Both the sentences, however, were ordered to run corcurrently.Safari under Section 368, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default 1 month's further R.I.2. The prosecution case against both the appellants was as follows : Mst. Sushila, a minor girl, used to live with her parents in the first floor of quarter No. 98, situated within the precincts of the Meel Chali Mohalla, Pali. Laxmi Narayan appellant also lived in the ground floor of the same quarter. On Apr...
Tag this Judgment!Rajputana Mining Agencies and Ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Raj)127; [1979]118ITR585(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. These 15 writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law and as such it would be convenient to dispose of them by a common order.2. The petitioners are the shareholders of M/s. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd., Ramganjmandi (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The company was incorporated in the erstwhile-princely State of Kota on January 17, 1945, as a public limited company for carrying on the business of quarrying and polishing stones. The then Maharaja of Kotagranted a lease to the company on May 2, 1945, for a period of 15 years beginning from October, 1944. The company distributed dividends to its shareholders, including the petitioners, for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61. The ITO, Kota, who was the assessing authority in respect of the petitioners did not gross up the dividends received from the company by the petitioners as shareholders thereof under Section 16(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council and anr. Vs. Deshraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)424
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipai Council, Sri Ganganagar, against the judgment of Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar dated 9-1 1974, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the off nee Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Food Inspector Veer Singh (P.W. 1) checked the respondent, while he was proceeding on a cycle with a drum containing about 9 kilo of milk on 5-8-1968 at about 9, am. He had a licence for vending milk. He purchased 660 ml. milk for a sum of 0.75 p. vide receipt Ex. P/1 for analysis. The milk purchased was put into three clean & dry bottles in equal quantity and 18 drops of formalin were put into each of the bottles and thereafter the bottles were duly packed and sealed. This was all done in the presence of 'motbirs' Harjitsingh and Satyapal. In this connection memo Ex. P/2 was prepared at the time of the purchase of the sample. Notice in Form VI Ex. P/3 was given. One o...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Jetha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)485
K.D. Sharma, J.1. D.B. Criminal Appeals Nos. 366/78 and 402/78 along with D.B. Criminal Revision No. 268 of 1978 filed by Jetha, Hansa alias Hansa Ram, Smt. Hanja, Smt. Pabu and Chunni Lal and D.B. Criminal Jail Appeals Nos. 407/78 and 408/78 preferred by Hansa Ram and Chunni Lal respectively are directed against ore and the same judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jalore, whereby Hansa Ram & Chunni Lal were convicted under Section 147 & 302 & 147 & 302 read with 149, I.P.C. respectively & each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years on the 1st count & on the 2nd was sentenced to death & to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, (one thousand only) By this very judgment, the other appellants, namely, Jetha, Mst. Hansa & Mst. Pabu were also convicted under Section 147 & 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. & each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on the first count and on the second to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of R...
Tag this Judgment!JainaraIn Vs. Smt. Meena Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)473
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This revision application has been filed against the appellate order passed by the Civil Judge, Bikaner on November 22, 1978.2. The facts, which have given rise to this revision application, briefly are that a suit for ejectment was filed by the plaintiff opposite party on Oct. 21, 1970 in the court of Munsif, Bikaner on the grounds of defaults in payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity for the suit promises and of nuisance. The defendant could not be served with summons for almost a pried of seven years for some reason or the other But on July 12, 1977 his counsel appeared before the trial court and a copy of the plaint was delivered to him On August 9, 1977, the defendant filed his written statement in which he denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the. parties and claimed that he hid taken the premises on rent from one Smt. Magi, widow of Chaturbhuj and after the death of Smt. Magi he did not know who was his landlord The t...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Singh Vs. the University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)462
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Dilipsingh, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Syndicate of the University of Jodhpur, Communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar of the University of Jodhpur by his letter dated 30th January, 1978, whereby the petitioner has been awarded the punishment oi cancellation of the examination in 1977 and debarring from appearing at any examination of the University to be held in the years 1978 and 1979.2. The petitioner had joined the first veai of the three year Degree Course of Bachelor of Science of the University of Jodhpur in July, 1976 and he appeared at the final year examination of the said three year degree course in the year 1977. The Registrar of the University of Jodhpur served upon the petitioner a memorandum dated 25th August, 1977, wherein it was stated that on 5th August, 1977, at about 8.15 AM, while answering the question paperofBotnay...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ram Purusharthi Co-operative Society Limited Vs. Dinesh Trading C ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)519
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This rule, at the instance of the defendant No. 1 is directed against the order dated January 30, 1978, passed by the learned Munsif, Pali, in civil suit No. 162 of 1975.2. Non-petitioner No. 1 is the plaintiff. Non-petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are defendants Nos. 2 & 3. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 instituted suit against the defendant-petitioner and non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 for Rs. 4867/- in the court of Munsif, Pali on November 20, 1975 averring that the plaintiff has supplied goods to defendant No. 1 on credit and that a sum of Rs. 4887/- is outstanding against defendant No. 1. It was also stated by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Cc-operative Societies Act, 1960 (No. XVII of 1961)(for short, 'the Act') Defendant No. 1 was served with the notice on the suit for appearing on April 30, 1976 and on that day, an application was filed inter alia stating that according to Section 8...
Tag this Judgment!Budha Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN624
M.C. Jain, J.1. The application has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 389(2), Cr. PC., against the older dated 13.02.1978, passed by Sessions judge, Jodhpur.2. The relevant facts are that the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge against the judgment of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Glass, Bilara, whereby he was convicted under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500/-, in default, to undergo our month' further rigorous imprisonment Along with the' appeal the applicant presented an application for suspension of sentence. The learned Sessions Judge suspended' the execution of the sentence provided the applicant furnishes a personal bond for a sum of Rs 3,000/-'with one surely in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Murisif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara. 'A condition was further imposed that the sentence shall be suspended on depositing the fine of Rs. 500/. The appl...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Indra Devi and ors. Vs. Raja Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN525
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2), CrPC.2. The non-applicant Rajaram was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, by his order dated 6th July, 1978, under Section 167(5), CrPC, as challan was not presented within sixty days from the date of his arrest. Rajaram was arrested on a charge under Section 302, IPC, on 10-4-1978. Charge-sheet was submitted on 9-6-1978. The learned Sessions Judge did not enter into the merits of the bail application and proceeded to enlarge the accused on bail on the basis that the charge-sheet was submitted beyond sixty days from the date of arrest.3. On behalf of the applicant it is urged that Section 167(2) has not been correctly construed Rajaram was produced before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur, for remand on 1-14-1978 Under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the police was entitled to detain the accused in custody for a period of twenty-four hours exclusive of the time ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »