Rajasthan Court September 1981 Judgments
Manoharlal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1411
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. This revision arises out of a case Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under the said section, accused petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur for contravention of condition (8) of license granted to the accused petitioner under the Rajasthan Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils Dealers Licensing Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). The accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs. 1,000/-, as fine and in default of payment of which further to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also ordered the forfeiture of 34 tins of the oil seized from the accused petitioner.2. In a revision petition which was filed by the accused petitioner in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, the learned Judge maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner but modified the sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra JaIn and ors. Vs. S.M. Poddar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2322
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.2. In proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P.C. an order was passed on 17-2-81 to remove the nuisance against the petitioners Kailash Chandra Jain and M/s. Rajshree Pictures Private Limited, Jaipur. On 19-5-81, it was noticed by the Court that in compliance of the order dated 17-2-81 the alleged nuisance has been removed. The Court then directed that in view of this, the proceedings Under Section 135, Cr. P.C. for taking evidence of the parties would now be taken. Accordingly, the Court directed that evidence would now be taken on 26-5-81.3. It is common ground that the non-petitioners, S.M. Poddar and others have moved another application before the lower Court Under Section 142, Cr. P.C. along with the application Under Section 133, Cr. P.C. It is also common ground that no order was passed on the application Under Section 142, Cr. P.C. and both the parties agree that till now no order has been pass...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Kant Vs. Rama Shankar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)282
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated August 3, 1977 under which, the learned Judge affirmed the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 497 IPC as well as the sentence, awarded by the learned Magistrate under his judgment dated 3.3.1976, while convicting the accused petitioner Under Section 497 IPC sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts in brief are there: Ramashankar was married to Smt. Ramabeti in accordance with the Hindu rites & customs in the year 1954, & both of them were living in Jodhpur in a rented house in the year 1966. The accused petitioner Krishna Kant was also living as a tenant in the adjoining room. Ramashankar was transferred from Jodhpur and when he asked his wife to accompany him, she refused to go with him. Ramashankar was retransferr...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jabbar Khan and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ128; 1981()WLN374
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an application Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P. C. against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur, dated 11th June. 1981, passed in Criminal Revision No. 73/1980 and 2/1981, Kailash Chandra v. Abdul Jabbar against the order of Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City in Criminal Case No. 14 (19) 80. State v. Kailash Chandra. Party No. l and Abdul Jabbar anil others. Party No. 2, Under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr. P. C.2. The dispute relates to an immovable property known as Mehtab Bhawan Siwad House of Maanii Sahib Raiku-mari Rathore, situated at old Amber Road, Jaipur. Respondent No. 1, Kailash Chandra took some portions on lease for running an oil mill. Maanii Sahib entered into an agreement to sell her, property on 12th Apr, 1979, in which the disputed hall as well as the oil mill of respondent No. l was located.3. Respondent No. l is the tenant of Maanji Sahib, and the petitioners are the purchasers of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sumrathya Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN248
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Sumrathya has filed this application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for issue of directions to the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajgarh District Alwar, to release the accused-petitioner on bail if apprehended, under Section 438, Cr. P.C. in FIR 53/81, and Criminal Complaint No 893/81 pending in the Court of Special Magistrate, Alwar for the offences under Sections 423, 436, and 504 IPC.2. The petitioner has also prayed that the Special Magistrate, Alwar to directed to convert non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants issued in this case. According to Mst. Nangi, widow of Ramphool, while she was preparing her meal, applicant Sumarthya came there and abused her like anything. Applicant caught hold of her, grappled with her and then set fire to her Chapper, as a result of which, the said Chapper and goods were burnt.3. The police after investigation, found the story to be false and submitted a final report. Mst. Nangi then lodged a criminal complaint in the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Balvir Kumar Arya Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN413
ORDERS - Enquiry - 23 passengers carried on payment without issuing tickets--Non-examination of passengers in inquiry-Inquiry officer satisfied on checking staff--Held, finding of guilt is not vitiated.Of course, it would have been much better if inquiry Officer had insisted on the production of at least one of such passengers who had paid the fare as a witness in the inquiry. That does not, however mean that if, in the facts and circumstances of this case. he felt satisfied on the statement of a member of the checking staff that the appellant had committed the dishonest act of charging fare from three passengers without issuing tickets to any of them, his finding in that behalf is necessarily vitiated merely because none of the passengers concerned was examined as a witness in the enquiry.(c) RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS AND WORKSHOPS EMPLOYEES - Order 34--STANDING ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Dayal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN389
ORDER, 1975--Stock not displayed-Accused functioning in shop on holiday--Held, theory of holiday was rightly disbelieved.The theory of holiday har not been, believed by the lower, court and correctly so, because the accused were actually functioning in the shop and doing the business.(c) RAJASTHAN ESSENTIAL 'COMMODITIES (DISPLAY OF PRICES & STOCK) ...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj67; 1981()WLN290
ORDERM.L. Shrimal, J. 1. Shri Arun Kumar, former Secretary of the Janta Party has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the President of India and appointment of Mr. K.D. Sharma (Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan) 'to discharge the functions of the Governor of Rajasthan under the provisions of Article 160 of the Constitution of India. He has prayed that Mr. K.D. Sharma is an usurper of the office of Governor of Rajasthan and, therefore, a writ of quo-warranto or any other direction be issued against Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Sharma to vacate the office of the Governor. The contention of the petitioner is that formerly he was a journalist. Thereafter he became a member of the Janta Party. He was elected Secretary of the Janta Party for the year 1978-79, is interested in the social political upliftment of Rajasthan and is vitally interested in seeing that the provisions of the Constitution are implemented faithfully. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Lal and ors. Vs. Umrao Lal Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj39; 1981()WLN233
1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dated June 29, 1981.2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity as well as on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The plaintiff-landlord filed an application under Section 13 (6) of the Rajasthan, Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 1-9-78 for striking off the defence against eviction. The learned District Judge. Alwar by his order dated 23-7-79 allowed the application and struck off the defence against eviction. The defendants filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act in this Court, which came UD for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment, dated June 29, 1981- The defendants have filed the present appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge. A preliminary objection was raised by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Jug Raj Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ526
ORDERM. C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and is at present serving as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. According to him on 14-9-1979 a criminal case Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, and 323, I.P.C., was registered at the Police Station, Sirohi, against 11 students and their bail application came up for consideration before the petitioner on 18-9-1979 when he was posted as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. While disposing of the bail application, certain observations were made by the petitioner with regard to the investigation and a copy of the order was sent to the District Magistrate. In that case the two accused Harbat Singh and Laxman Singh were sons of some Police Sub-Inspector, Shri Zalam Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 5, showed his personal interest in that case and he wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Sirohi, for constituting a Medical Board and in the case diary one pistol was shown to have ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »