Rajasthan Court February 1985 Judgments
S.K. Kakkar and anr. Vs. Yaswant Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN601
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The two accused petitioners have filed this revision against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur dated 17-9-84. The revision arises under the following circumstances:2. On a complaint filed by non-petitioner Yashwant Singh against the present petitioners, the court took cognizance of an offence Under Section 448 I.P.C. against them. When the matter was pending for framing charges, an application was moved signed by both the parties and their learned Counsel on 4-4-84 that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant did not want to further prosecute the case. It was further prayed that the accused may be acquitted. 4-4-1984 was not the date fixed in the proceedings of this case and, therefore, the learned Magistrate recorded an order on the back of this application to the effect that the parties with their counsel had filed this application, the matter may be put up on the date of hearing along with case file. The next...
Tag this Judgment!Surja Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN604
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is a complainant's revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 20-9-1983 by which he framed charges Under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323 and 325 read with 149 I.P.C. against the non-petitioners and sent the case back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. The objection of the complainant is that this case need not have been sent back by the learned Sessions Judge to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate but should have been tried by him as the learned Magistrate had committed this case to him Under Section 323 Cr. P.C. although it may not have been exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. The ground on which the learned Sessions Judge refused to retain the case on his file and sent it back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, was that Under Section 228, the Court of Sessions can try only those cases which are exclusively triable by that court. He was further of the view that before the coming into force of the amended Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Nazir Khan S/O Rahim Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)304
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. This bail application has been moved under Section 438 Cr. PC by the petitioner Nazir Khan alleging that one N.K. Singhapuri has lodged a report at Police Station, Paltan Road, Bombay. In connection with that report Moinuddin and Mohd. Farukh were arrested for offence under Section 506 IPC and later on both of them have been released on bail by the Additional Chief Metropolition Magistrate Bombay. On January 31, 1985 the petitioner returned from Alwar and came to his house at Jaipur. He was informed by his family members that on January 29, 1985 some police people from Bombay along with some policemen of Vidhayak-Nagar police station, Jaipur had come to his place and had enquired about him. He was also informed that the policemen wanted to arrest him in connection with some criminal case pending in Bombay Court. A non-bailable warrant has been issued against him.2. Mr. Rafiq argued that the allegation against the petitioner is for offence under Section 506 IPC...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap and 2 ors. Vs. Ratan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)617
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, dated November 18, 1983, whereby he dismissed the revision petition preferred against an order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC on application under Section 146 Cr. PC.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that Ratan Lal non-petitioner moved an application under Section 145 Cr. PC on July 19, 1982 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur wherein it was alleged by him that the land mentioned in para 1 of his application popularly known as Beela Hali Kothi is situated in village Kajmana, police station Choth-Ka-Barbada. It is alleged that this land has been in possession of his father since last 50 years and he had been cultivating the same. It was alleged that his father had spent a huge amount for making it cultivable and as prior to it, it was barren land. He alleged that by a mistake in S.Y. 2009 it was wr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ayodhya Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN167
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. This case comes up for orders on the application which was filed by the learned counsel for the assessee on February 4, 1985.2. We have perused the judgment dated February 3, 1984 and also the findings recorded on questions No. 1 and 4. In view of the findings recorded, there appears to be some error in the para above the pen-ultimate para of the judgment. The error is rectified. In the third line of the para above the pen-ultimate para in place the words 'against the assessee', the words 'and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue respectively' shall be added. After correction, the para above the pen-ultimate para of the judgment, will read as under:We, therefore, answer questions No. 1 and 4 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue respectively. Questions No. 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.It is not necessa...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN639
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Since these two criminal appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated April 25, 1979, they were heard together and are decided by a single judgment. By the judgment aforesaid, the respondents Banwari, Kishna Ram Chadra s/o Moti Ram, Ram Kishan and Ram Lal were acquitted of the offences under Sections 148, 452 and 302/149 IPC while accused Ram Ratan was convicted under Sections 302 and 452 IPC and Section 25(a) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for one year and four months on the respective counts. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused Ram Ratan has come up in appeal to challenge his convictions and sentences while the State has come against the acquittal of the aforesaid five respondents. It is in this way that we have two appeals before us.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case runs as under. The deceased victim Laluram was the brother of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Harpyari Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC57
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. The two Claims arise out of an accident which took place on 31st March, 1969, at about 3.45 p.m. One claim has been filed by Murari Lal and another has been filed by Harpyari and others.2. Harpyari's husband Surajbhan was travelling in bus No. 5434. The bus was proceeding from Jaipur to Bharatpur. At a distance of three miles and five farlangs, the accident took place on Jaipur and Agra Road. Bus No. RSL 5434 and RJR 2278 collided. Harpyari's husband Surajbhan died on the spot.3. On behalf of Murari Lal an has been preferred against the award dated 31-5-1977 in claim No. 1 of 1977 (Old claim No. 30 of 1969).4. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence in Harpyari's case held that deceased Suraj Bhan was travelling in bus No. RSL 5434 on 31-3-1969 and was going from Jaipur to Bharatpur. Learned Tribunal also held that bus No. RSL 5434 collided with bus No. 2278, on account of rash and negligent driving of the drivers, as a result of which Surajbhan received ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Maina Devi Vs. Thakur Mansingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj44; 1985(2)WLN329
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a Civil first appeal against the judgment & decree dated the 26th Jan. 1980 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur by the defendant appellant-Smt. Maina Devi against the plaintiff-respondents.2. Before this Court, in this first appeal, the decree in Civil Suit No. 11/78 granting redemption of mortgage and the possession of the property on it is being challenged.3. There is no dispute so far as the facts are concerned because, whatever documents have been exhibited in the case in the form of first mortgage and second mortgage making it clear that the parties entered into mortgage deed at two different points of time.4. The important feature of this case is that so far as the record goes, the second mortgage deed for Rs. 20,000/- was executed on 2nd August, 1975, and by this whereas on the one hand the first mortgage deed dated the 26th May, 1973 was redeemed and that amount was included in this, the property which was now to be mortgaged was spec...
Tag this Judgment!Jesaram and 161 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN662
M.C. Jain, J.1. The writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule annexed with this order raise common questions, so, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. I may state a few relevant facts in the petition of Jesaram mentioned above.3. The petitioner Jesaram was allotted 50 Bighas of land comprised of Squares No. 256/376 and 257/376 by allotment order dated December 25, 1961 (Annx. 1), in compliance of the order of the Commissioner Colonization dated Oct. 16, 1961 for allotment of land to the declared landless agriculturists of Bhakra Project Area in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area. It was stated in the allotment order that the rules framed under the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 shall apply to the allotted land and the allottee would be bound by the rules framed from time to time. It was further provided that the allottee will be responsible for making payment of price of the land as determined by the State Government in time. There were other conditions as well. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›