Rajasthan Court April 1982 Judgments
Kishan Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN209
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this petition, petitioner Kishan Kumar seeks to quash the order Ex.3 dated November 17, 1975, by which his services were terminated. He has also prayed that he may be reinstated with all consequen-tial benefits. Facts first.2. The petitioner was appointed by order Ex.1 dated June 27, 1973 as temporary local substitute Khalasi under the Inspector of Works, Jodhpur in the scale of Rs. 70-85 (AS) on pay Rs 70/- plus usual allowances. He joined on July 3, 1973. The petitioner along with others submitted representation Ex.2 dated May 8, 1975 for taking up his name in the regular panel. The petitioner continuously worked since July 3, 1973, until the notice Ex.3 dated November 17, 1975, in which it was stated that as the petitioner has not secured a position to come up within the vacancies arising upto May 1, 1973, his services would stand terminated on the date after one month of the issue of the notice. Subsequently, the petitioner's services were ordered to be term...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveersingh and Laxmidan Vs. Raghunath and Narpat Karan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN452
M.C. Jain, J.1. In the above two writ petitions, a common preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions has been raised, so I propose to dispose of that objection by this order.2. By these writ petitions, the elections of Pradhans of Panchayat Samitis have been challenged and it is prayed that the respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions namely; Narendrasingh in civil writ petition No. 7 of 1982 and Tejsingh in civil writ petition No. 80 of 1982 may be declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Bali and Balotra respectively and the elections of respondent No. 1 namely; Raghunath Parihar in the first writ petition and Narpatkaran in the second writ petition may be declared invalid.3. I may briefly advert to the material facts of the first writ petition. The petitioner in that petition was elected as a Panch from ward No. 5 of Gram Panchayat, Boya Tehsil Bali. The elections, whereof, were held on December 10, 1981. The petitioner was a voter for the offic...
Tag this Judgment!Mukhi Alias Mukhtiyar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)46
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated February 18, 1977 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. At the commencement of the arguments the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not press the appeal on merits rather prays that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the young age of the appellant a lenient view may be taken and he may not be sent behind the bars again after lapse of a period of 7 years since the date of occurrence.3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose this request.4. The case relates to the year 1975. The case against the appellant was that he and his father were sitting on a cot on the day of occurrence and they were talking to see soms Karnail Singh. Hariram, a passer by,...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)35
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C, challenging the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (1), Jodhpur dated 9-11-77 in Criminal Original case No. 1100 of 1977 under Section 9 of the Indian Opium Act.2. One Jagdish Prasad Excise Inspector lodged an F.I.R. at 7 P.M. on, 2-11-74 at P.S. Jhanwar. It was alleged that a Car bearing No. 6212 was seized and on search it was found that it contained substance like opium in its diggi. However, during in vestigation, the Chemical Examiner reported in negative for opium. A final report was submitted. The Magistrate concerned was, however, not satisfied and directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to produce the seized material. A sample was then taken by the Magistrate and it was ordered to be sent for re-examination.3. This order was challenged before this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and the petition was accepted on 20-10-76 Vide S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 295/76 (1976 R.L...
Tag this Judgment!Sadul Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)48
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The petitioner along with three other viz. Amir Singh Bhag Singh and Dhara Singh were tried for the, offences under Sections 323, 324, 342, 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate Hanumangarh. By the judgment dated December 9, 1975 the learned Magistrate held the petitioners Sadul Singh and Pritam Singh guilty for the offences under Sections 148 and 324, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to three months' rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each on each count, in default to two months' simple imprisonment each on each count. Kashmir Singh was convicted for the offences, under Sections 147 and 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one Month's rigorous imprisonment on each count. Amar Singh and, Amir Singh were convicted for the offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one month's tigorous imprisonment, each. The learned Magistrate dealt the case of Bhag Singh and Dhara Singh under Section 360(3) of the Code ...
Tag this Judgment!AlladIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)155
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Petitioner Alladin was tried for the offence under section 7/16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), and by the judgment dated March 8, 1978 was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer for the aforesaid charge and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. In appeal against the judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur (Camp Jaisalmer) upheld the conviction and affirmed the sentence awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court on sentence only.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter relates to February 1976 and the petitioner had remained in custody for a period of 22 days. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, lapse of period since the commission of the crime and the fact that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Ram Alias Sawa Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)31
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Petitioner Shiv Ram alias Sawa Was tried for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and a fine of Rs. 100/-in default to under go three months rigorous imprisonment, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur by his judgment dated August 2, 1976. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur by the judgment dated March 31, 1978 reduced the substantive sentence to four months' rigorous mprisonment, but upheld the sentence of fine.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press the revision petition on merits but prays for a lenient view being taken in view of the circumstances that a period of about nine years has lapsed since the alleged offence and the petitioner is a young man. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Public prosecutor does not oppose this prayer.3. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of abou...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajesthan Vs. Laxmansingh and Three ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)50
M.C. Jain, J.1. The respondents were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar of the offences Under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C., by the judgment dated 27-3-73.2. Gagru P.W. 2 lodged a report at the Police Station Kishangarh on 25-11-72 at about 11 A.M. to the effect that his 'Sarson' Crop was standing in his field Pipalwala. On 24-11-72 he was informed by Roozdar P.W. 3 in the morning that his 'Sarson' crop has been uprooted and removed by the accused Laxmansingh. On this information he visited his field and found that his Sarson crop has teen uprooted and saw that foot prints were proceeding towards the field of Laxmansingh. He went to the village and there from visited the field of Laxmansingh along with Prem since deceased, Ramjilal, Banshilal P.W. 1 and Chhagan Singh. They found the uprooted crop covered with 'Kadvi' (Cattle fodder). Gagru demanded the return of the crop, but Laxmansingh resisted and there upon, according to Gagru, Laxmansingh Indersingh Bundisingh and Mst...
Tag this Judgment!Bachaya Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)32
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The petitioner Bacbaya Khan was tried for the offence under Section 4(2) of the Rajastban Prohibition Act, 1969 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer and by his judgment dated 21-7-1977 held guilty for the charge and sentenced to six months'simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.2. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence petitioner filed an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur (camp Jaisalmer) by the judgment dated 15-4-1978 upheld his conviction and affirmed the sentence passed by the trial Magistrate. It is in grievance of the appellate court's judgment that the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.3. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 13-7-75 he was carrying 8 bettles of illiet liquor in a jericance. On a telephonic information by constable Bheem Singh (P.W.3) to effect that Baehaya Khan would be passing the way with illi...
Tag this Judgment!Jawaharlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)55
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In the trial conducted by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 307, 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code five accused were acquitted of the charges while the appellant Jawaharlal was held guilty for the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one yaer's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Being dis-satisfied with his conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal in this Court3. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the trial of the appellant and the present appealare as under:--Kishanlal, father of the appellant and Dalchand, are real brothers. On 1-12-1974 at 6 p.m. Jawaharlal son of Kishanlal caused injury with a stone on the eye of Chunnilal son of Dalchand. Champalal, brother of Chunnilal, on seeing his brother injured, went to the police outpost and informed the police constable there. Thereafter Champalal went to his house t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »