Rajasthan Court March 1978 Judgments
Mukat Behari Lal Vs. Shivcharan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj106
ORDERM.L. Shrimal, J. 1. In the General Elections of 1977, 20 persons filed nomination papers from the Bayana constituency for electionto the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, all of which were found on scrutiny to be valid. Among these persons were the petitioner Mukat Behari Lal, respondent No. 1 Shiv Charan Singh, respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and also 12 others. Shri Shiv Charan Singh (respondent No. 1), secured 16926 votes and was declared duly elected from the aforesaid constituency by the Returning Officer (respondent No. 8), Petitioner Mukat Behari Lal secured 16090 votes, The rest of the persons filing nomination papers secured votes, the total number of which remained confined to 50423 votes,2. On July 28, 1977 the petitioner filed the present election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') calling in question the election of the returned candidate and for declaration that his election be held null and void and f...
Tag this Judgment!Bheek Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)133
R.L. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner Bheek Singh has preferred this revision through jail against his conviction under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentence of of rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months. His conviction & sentence was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer vide his judgment dated 18/4/1977. This was maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Balotra, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner vide his judgment dated 12/8/1977.2. In brief the prosecution case was that one Kamal Singh the cousin brother of injured Gaj Singh was married to a girl in village Piluda to whom the accused Bheek Singh was betrothed. This is said to be the reason of animosity between the parties. On the intervening night of 3rd and 4th August, 1976 Gaj Singh injured was sleeping in his 'Bara' and in the dead of night the petitioner along with his other companions entered the 'Bara' duly armed. One o...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)78
R.L. Gupta, J.1. The appellant Gopal was tried for the offences under Sections 307, 328 and 392 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta for having administered 'Dhatoora' in sweets in to Poosa Ram PW. 1, Nimbaram PW. 3 on 30.5.1975 and Kumbharam, PW. 3 on 30.5.1975 and having robbed the golden earstud (loong) from the person of PW. 2 Nimbaram. The earned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted the appellant of the offences 392 IPC but he convicted him for the offences under Section 307 and 328 IPC. For the offence under Section 307 IPC the appellant was sentenceed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six year and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of the payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 328 IPC he was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment & to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default to pay the fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences on both the counts were made to...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Vs. Smt. Gurkirtan Kaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN270
M.L. Jain, J.1. The facts of this second appeal are that the appellant was a tenant of the respondent who filed a suit for ointment for conversion of the shop into a living roam for her personal use. The learned Munsifl dismissed the suit so far as the eviction was concerned. One of the issues framed by him was whether by passing a decree of eviction any hardship will be caused to the patties and in what manner and whether the hardship to the defendant will be greater to the defendant in comparison to the plaintiff.2. The learned Munsif was of the view that hardship will be greater to the defendant than to the plaintiff Upon appeal, the learned Civil Judge found that the defendant had a three stayed house of his own comprising of 9 rooms, out of which some are in his occupation. He runs a tea-stall in the shop outside Navigator Hotel and his case that he runs a waterman's business in the disputed premises was not believed. The defendant had stated that he was an employee in the tea sta...
Tag this Judgment!Rawal Das Vs. Vasudevi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Raj155
ORDERM.L. Jain, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Kote. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner-defendant on Feb. 23, 1973. The summons to the defendant was issued for appearance on April 16, 1973. On that date, the Judge proceeded to record that the summons has not returned after service and may be issued again, but immediately the defendant appeared and wanted time for filing of a written statement. The case was then adjourned to May 17, 1973. He did not care to appear on that date or thereafter and an ex parte decree was passed for eviction against him on Sept. 12, 1973. When execution was levied, the defendant made an application on Dec. 7, 1973, for setting aside of the decree under Order 9 R, 13 C. P. C. The learned Munsif after recording the evidence held that the defendant was duly served for appearance on April 16, 1973, and he did appear on that date. He should have filed the said applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Deo Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)76
R.L. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner Arjun Deo has preferred this revision through jail. The petitioner along with oneco accused Ramesh Kumar was convicted for the offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months, by the Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jodhpur vide his judgment dated 23.3.1977. His co-accused Ramesh Kumar was also accordingly convicted and sentenced. The petitioner Arjun Deo preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which, on transfer, was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 25.10.1977. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence as aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred this revision.2. I have perused the record of the cast and also heard the learned public prosecutor...
Tag this Judgment!Mustafa Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)128
P.D. Kundal, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated 28th February, 1978. The accused was tried for an offence under, Section, 307 IPC, but was convicted under Section 323, IPC, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The learned Counsel for the accused appellant has contended that at the time of occurrence the accused was below 21 years of age. The incident is alleged to have taken place en 30th March, 1976. According to the school certificate the date of birth of the accused appellant is 6th July, 1959. It has been contended that the accused appellant had gone to fetch his wife Mst. Saharbanu who was with her parents. As Mst. Saharbanu was not prepared to accompany the accused, a scuffle arose in which the accused beat her. According to the medical report, the following injuries were found on the bod...
Tag this Judgment!Yashwant Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)66
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions judge, Dausa dated 28th January, 1978.2. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 307/34, IPC by the learned trial Court, But he was acquitted of the offence under Section 307/34, IPC but convicted under Section 324, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.3. The learned Counsel for the accused-apellant has contended that looking to the nature and to the fact that the accused was below 21 years of age on the date occurrence, the learned lower Cort has erred in law in not extending the benefit of the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, It was also contended that the learned lower the age 21 years on the date when the judgment was pronounced.4. Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the State has contended that from the evidence on record the prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home to the accused. He has, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Shokat Beg, Etc. Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj37; 1978(11)WLN694
ORDERM.L. Joshi, Ag. C.J.1. These three writ petitions arise on facts which are closely parallel and also are based on identical grounds. They are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment,2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions appeared in the examination of LL, M. Part I held in the year 1974, The petitioners Mirza Shokat Beg and Murarilal appeared as ex-students whereas petitioner Azeez Hasan Khan Majeedi appeared as a regular student in the said examination, There were four papers prescribed by the University for the LL. M, Part I examination. They were--(1) Legal Theory.(2) Legislation -- Principles, Methods and Interpretation.(3) Legal History of India; and(4) Comparative Law,3. In the year 1974 LL, M. Part I examination the examinees were required to attempt four questions in each question-paper but later on choice was given to the examinees to attempt three questions. The examiners were instructed to give marks to the examinees for the three questions attempted ...
Tag this Judgment!Heera S/O Chhiter Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)73
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, dated April 17, 1973, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Heera son of Chhitar, under, Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of one Gyarsa, and sentenced him to imprisonment. for life The other co-accused, tried along with him, viz. Mst. Harku, was however, acquitted of all the offences levelled against her.2. The fact giving rise to this appeal are that the accused Heera and Gyarsa deceased were cousins. It was strongly suspected that the accused appellant was clandestinely having illicit intimacy with Gyarsia's wife. On 22-6 72, Gyarsa was seen alive in the Gram Panchayat at Gorde, & thereafter at 2 a.m in that area, he was seen by his mother Mst. Hari PW. 13, and there alter the whereabouts of the decease d were not known. On July 21, 1972, the Head Constable Surajbhan Singh, PW 15, came to the village on patrolling duty. After receiving in rations from va...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »