Rajasthan Court July 1983 Judgments
Umaram Vs. Aaduram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)469
D.L. Mehta, J.1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 532 of 1983 was filed by the petitioner challenging the orders Ex. 8 dated December 22, 1983 and Ex. 12 dated January 29, 1983. By Order (Ex. 8) dated December 22, 1983, the learned Munsif rejected the application submitted by the respondent for summoning the documents. Thereafter, on January 10, 1983, learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application (Ex. 10) for the amendment of the written statement. It was prayed therein that if the recounting of the votes received by the respondent is allowed, then all the votes received by the petitioner may also be recounted. This application was rejected vide order Ex.12 dated January 29, 1983.2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 532 of 1983 before this Court on February 19, 1983. The writ petition Was listed for admission before this Court on April 6, 1983. On that date, Mr. D.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.L. Choudhary, learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN501
S.S. Vyas, J.1. Accused Mohanram has been convicted under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's like imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur by his judgment dated February (0, 1983. The accused has filed this jail appeal IO challenge his conviction and sentence.2. At about 11 a.m. on 27.8.82, the prosecutrix Mst. Dhani (PW. I) aged about 20 years went to her field to bring grass The field is situate at a littlie distance from her town Jaswartgarh. While she was collecting grass in the field, the accused came and addressed some words to her. The prosecutrix gave no reply. The accused then threw her down in the held. She tried to raise cries but the accused put his hand on her mouth Thereafter, he loosened his dhoti, put off the underwear and committed rape on her. After committing rape, he ran away. She raised cries. PW 7 Shyamsunder, who was working ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotu Khan and anr. Vs. Jeewan Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj110
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The dispute in this case lies in a very narrow compass. The parties had referred their dispute to the arbitrators. The arbitrators after hearing the parties, made their award, pronounced and signed it in the presence of the partres on 11-2-1973 and also obtained the signatures of the parties on the award. Thereafter a notice of the making and signing of the award Under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act was issued by the arbitrators on 19-5-1973 and it was received by Chhptu Khan and others, the present appellants on 25-5-1973. On 2-7-1973. Chhotu Khan and others filed an application before the court of the learned District Judge. Bikaner praying that the arbitrators may be directed' to file the award and a decree in terms of the award may be passed with costs. This application was opposed by the respondents-non-applicants Jeewan Khan and others on the ground that it was barred by time under Article 119 of the Limitation Act. The learned District Judge after hearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1983
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT72(Raj); [1985]156ITR864(Raj); 1983WLN(UC)279
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This order will dispose of S. B. Civil WritPetitions Nos. 951 of 1981 and 1492 of 1981 filed by the petitioner,Smt. Pushpa Devi.2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Her status is that of an individual. At the time of the assessment for the year 1967-68, the petitioner explained the source of acquisition of 150 tolas of gold ornaments by stating that they were received by her from her mother, mother-in-law and other relatives and also on the occasions of birth of child, marriage of other relatives, etc. The Wealth-tax Officer, by his order dated February 10, 1969, assessed the petitioner for a total wealth amounting to Rs. 1,52,889 which included the value of the said ornaments. The petitioner has been filing the returns for the purposes of assessment under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act and the assessments have been completed up to the assessment year 1976-77 and the assessing authorities throughout accepted the declaration of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Khubi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)519
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has come before this Court as his grade increments were ordered to be withheld, as a result of disciplinary proceedings conducted against him Under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The petitioner was appointed as a Prosecuting Sub-Inspector (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSI') in the service of the State Government and was posted at Bhilwara in the year 1971.0n 23-10-1971 the Prosecuting Inspector directed the petitioner to cross-examine the defense witnesses in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 45/71 (State v. Dunga), as the Public Prosecutor attached to the Sessions Court, Bhilwara was on leave on that day. After the defence witnesses were examined in the aforesaid Sessions Case, the learned Sessions Judge directed the parties to argue the case, but the petitioner prayed for an adjournment as he was not prepared...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)273
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Learned Counsel for the parties have prayed that the writ petition may finally be disposed of at the admission stage. The prayer is accepted.2. The State Government purporting to Act Under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959(No. 38 of 1959) (for short 'the Act' herein) refixed the number of seats for Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar as 40 vide notification dated September 27, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra Extra-ordinary Part VI(ka) and out of the total 40 seats, 33 seats were declared as general seats and 7 seats were reserved for scheduled casts. Thereafter, by notification dated October 14, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra Part VI (ka), the State Government Under Section 4 of the Act extended the territorial limits of the Ganganagar Municipal Council. After extention of the territorial limits of Ganganagar Municipality, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar submitted proposals to the State Government for fresh delimitation of words of Gang...
Tag this Judgment!Bagdi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN362
S.S. Vyas, J.1. This is jail appeal by accused Bagdiram against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh dated February 25, 1983 convicting the appellant under Section 376, IPC. and sentencing to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months, like imprisonment.2. In the afternoon of 11.2.82, the prosecutrix Ramudi (PW. 1) a girl of tender age of 11-12 years went to her field situate in village Mayakhera to bring the grass. When she reached there, the accused who was hiding him self came out from the standing crop. He caught hold of her and threw her down. Thereafter, he lifted her skirt and committed rape on her, she started weeping but the accused did not leave her. Hearing her screams, P.W. 2 Mangu and P.W. 3 Jeeva, who were passing by that side, came there. Seeing them, the accused ran away. They brought the girl to her house. On the next day, P.W. 2 Mangu went to Police Station, Arnod and lodged repo...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Dhariwal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN286
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This revision Under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated 15-4-83 by which charges under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against the accused petitioners with a prayer that the charges may be quashed.2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that the accused Ashok, his father Kanmal, his sister Lalita and the other members of the family, were dissatisfied with the dowery brought by the deceased Smt. Hansa wife of Ashok and were, therefore, illtreating and torturing her to compel her to bring some more money and ornaments from her father. This resulted in Hansa's falling ill. She was got treated at the various dispensaries and hospital and was then taken to her brother's place. It was suspected that she may have been a victim of slow poisoning. Hansa is said to have been complaining against her-in-laws about the illtreatment meted out to her and had also written letters ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Prabhu Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1526
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This petition of revision by the complainant is directed against the appellate order of sentence, dt. May 31, 1971, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran in a case of adulteration of milk punishable under Section 16(1)(a) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as it stood prior to its amendment by Act No. 34 of 1976. The learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, simple imprisonment for three months. The complainant has challenged the sentence as inadequate and illegal and has prayed for its enhancement.2. The main contention raised, by learned Counsel for the complainant is that Under Section 16, as it stood even prior to its amendment by Act No. 34 of 1976 the minimum sentence which could be awarded was a sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine. According to counsel the lower appellate court appears to be of the view that Section 16, as it stood before its amendment by Act No. 34 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1142
ORDERS.S. Byas, J.1. By this application, purporting to have filed under Section 439 of the Criminal P.C. the petitioner Dev Kishan seeks his enlargement on bail.2. The facts sainted at the bar are that a Criminal Case No. 37 of 1982 State v. Bherusingh for offences under 395, 342. 307 and 120B, I.P.C. is pending trial in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. The petitioner accepted a tender of pardon and became an approver. He was examined as a witness in the trial court on 12.10.1982. He now prays that he may toe released on bail. It was pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that during trial, the petitioner turned hostile and failed to make a compliance of the conditions on which, the tender of pardon was made to him.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused-persons facing trial, have been released on bail. The trial is to take long time. The applicant was arrested on May 27, 1982 and since then, he is in custody. It would be. therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »