Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN564
S.S. Vyas, J.1. Accused Vijay Dan was convicted under Section 161, IPC and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Jodhpur by his judgment dated 30.4.80. The accused has com-up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.2. Put briefly, the prosecution case is that the accused was posted as Head Constable at Police Outpost Utamber, PS Shergarh district Jodhpur in May, 1975. In that capacity he was conducting investigation in police Case No. 8/75 against PW 5 Om Prakash, PW6 Pukhraj and others for offences under Section 452, 148 etc of the Penal Code, it was alleged in that case that the miscreants went in a three-wheeler Auto-Rikshaw No. RJQ 8653 to commit the offences. On 8.5.75, the accused arrested PW 5 Om Prakash and PW 6 Pukhraj at Jodhpur and also seized the aforesaid vehicle. He took them to Police Station, Mahamandir and lodged them in the police Lock-up. PW 1 Chhagan Lal, who is father of Pukhraj (PW 6) approac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN608
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Petitioner, Ram Singh a Shutar Sawar, appointed in the year 1955, was removed from services by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur, by the order Ex P.13 dated 5.8.75. The petitioner, dissatisfied by that order, prepared an appeal before the S.D.M., Jodhpur. The appeal was rejected by the order dated 21.2.75. Thereafter he filed a review application before the Collector, Jodbpur, which was rejected as not being entertainable. The petitioner had now invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the orders Ex. P.13 and P.15. The avernments are that he was appointed vide Ex. 1 on 21.2.1955 by the Collector, Jodhpur, as Shutar Sawar (Camel Sawar) A criminal case for identifying a wrong person at the instance of another employee of the department in connection with a Taccavi loan of Rs. 250/- was instituted against him. Because of that case he was suspended vide order Ex. 2 on 15th June, 1965. He was acquitted in that case but ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)426
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellants Gokul and Gordhan were tried for the offences under Sections 366 and 363 IPC by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned trial Judge held Gokul guilty for the offence under Section 366 IPC and Gordhan for the offence under Section 366/409 IPC. On October 22, 1977 the learned Judge sentenced Gokul for the aforesaid offence to six months RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in deafult to undergo three months RI. Gordhan was santenced to four months RI and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in deafult to undergo two months RI for the offence under Section 366/109 IPC.2. Being dissatisfied by their conviction and sentences, the two appellants have preferred this appeal in this Court.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the appeal are as under:--On March 11, 1977 Jagroop (PW 1) lodged the report at Police Station, Kareda to the effect that on March 9, 1977 Smt. Lahari aged 27 years along with her three children was going from her father' shouse to Nayapura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN760
D.L. Mehta, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the notification No. Tax. F.114(2) DLB-1961 dated 13-5-68 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 13-5-68 imposing the duty of octroi do not apply to the goods imported from outside the State of Rajasthan which are not manufactured or produced in the State of Rajasthan and no tax of octroi can be imposed on such imported goods. Thus, he challenged the validity of the notification referred to above and prays for a declaration that the notification may be declared ultra vires as far as it applies to the goods imported from outside the State of Rajasthan which are not manufactured or produced in the State of Rajasthan and that no tax of octroi can be imposed on such imported goods. He has also prayed that directions may be issued restraining the respondents from imposing, realising or demandi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)434
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment. The ejectment was sought on three grounds, namely, personal necessity, default and material alterations made by the defendant in the suit premises. The trial court found the grounds of personal necessity, as well as material alterations in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiff's suit. On the defendant's appeal, the learned District Judge, Pali, found against the plaintiff on the ground of personal necessity, but up held the finding of the trial court in respect of material alterations and confirmed the decree. The defendant has come up in second appeal.2. The following substantial questions of law had been framed at the admission of this appeal:(i) Whether, there was no specific pleadings about material alterations and, therefore, the findings of the courts below in this respect are vitiated?(ii) Whether, the change in the situation of the door in the circumstances of the case, amount to material ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj206; 1983()WLN552
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order (Ex. 3) dt. June 11, 1982 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. He has further prayed that it may be declared that the suit (Ex. 1) filed by respondent No. 3 is not triable by Revenue Court and is only triable by the Civil Court. Further ancillary prayers have also been made in the writ petition.3. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh. In para 2 of the said suit, it has been alleged that on Sept. 22, 1979, her husband has expired and she has no issue and as such, all the rights of her husband, devolved on her. In para 4 of the plaint, it has been submitted that on July 4, 1980, some one has got executed a sale deed in her name in favour of the petitioner. It was submitted that she has never executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. In the suit, she has sought a declaration that the plaintiff (respondent No. 3) is the tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj183; 1983()WLN476
Agrawal, J.1. This special appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge (D. L. Mehta J.) dt. September 9. 1983 in S. B. Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1973 of 1983 filed by the appellant whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition and affirmed the judgment dt. July 27. 1983 passed by the Civil Judge Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Tribunal' allowing the election petition filed by Taru Ram Respondent No. 1 and Birma Ram Respondent No. 2 and setting aside the election of the appellant as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Malasar.2. The election of the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Malasar was held in the month of December 1983 under the notification issued by the District Magistrate. Bikaner. The nomination papers were required to be submitted on Dec. 30 1981 from 8 A. M. to 11 A. M., the scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed on the same date at 11.30 A. M. and the date of pol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)324
S.S. Vyas, J.1. By these applications Under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the three accused persons have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the proceedings in the criminal cases pending against them in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (1), Jodhpur for offence Under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (here in after to be referred as the Act).2. Since the revision applications of the accused persons were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Jodhpur, the applications were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. It may also to mentioned that the points involved in these cases are identical.3. The prosecution case is that illicit liquor was found in possession of the accused petitioners and cases were consequently registered against them Under Section 4(2) of the Act. Accused Bhawan Das was arrested on 6-10- 1979 while the remaining two were arrested on 2-2-80. A challan was submitted agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj166; 1983()WLN583
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that a writ of auo warranto or any other appropriate writ order or direction, may be issued and the second respondent may be ousted from the office of the Member Municipal Board. Ladnu.2. A few facts leading to filing of this writ petition are briefly as under:--Respondent 3, the Collector, Nagpur. appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer deedwana as Returning Officer for co-option of one woman member to the vacancy which had occurred in the office of Municipal Board on July 18, 1983. By the same order, the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to issue a notice to the members of the Municipal Board of a period not less than 7 days before the date of election and to get the notices served on all members and then take proceedings as per law. The Collector. Nagaur (respondent 3) annexed a list of members of the Municipal Board to this order. That list did not contain the name of Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)356
M.C. Jain, J.1. The Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, by his judgment dated 24-8-1974 convicted the appellants of the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to each of them to imprisonment for life for having murdered one young Lad by name Aziz son of Kalekhan, who was found missing from the evening of 30-11-19732. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Nirbhay Singh (PW 13) happened to go towards the temple on the hillock and found the dead body lying prostrate. He reported the matter to his father-in-law Deepsingh (PW 12) Deepsingh in turn informed Kalekhan that a dead body is lying inside the dilapidated temple, so he may go and find out whether it is of his son. There upon Kalekhan (PW 3) went to the temple and found that the dead body is of his son Aziz. He came back to his village Vinota and raised shrieks and told the villagers about the dead body of his son. Thereupon the villagers went to the temple. The matter was also brought to the notice of the Sarpanch Sagarmal (PW 10...
Tag this Judgment!