Rajasthan Court July 1985 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)183
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. Petitioner passed his Diploma in Civil Engineering from Jodhpur Polytechnic College in the year 1969 and was initially appointed as an Overseer (Civil) in the Public Engineering Department by order dated 4-5-70. The post of Engineering Sub-ordinate has now been re-designated as Junior Engineer by a Notification dated 6-1-75. Petitioner was confirmed as Junior Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 5-2-75 (Annx. 1). Petitioner passed A.M.I.E. (Civil) on 25-1-76 and after passing the said examination, petitioner was given higher start which is given to a degree-holder w.e.f. 25-1-76 by order dt. 4-11-1976 passed by the Chief Engineer (Annx. 2) the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Public) Health Branch) Rules 1968 were amended vide the amendment to the rules published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dt. July 1, 1976, by which it was provided that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) will be 50% by promotion i.e. 25% from the Sub-Engineers and 25% from the Junior Eng...
Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN451
Klshore Sihgh Lodha, J.1. The petitioner Harbans Kaur had moved an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance from her husband alleging that the parties had married about 13 months prior to the filing of this application and they lived together for about 11 months where after the non-petitioner took her to her father's house and left her there. It was also alleged that during the time the petitioner lived with her husband, the non-petitioner's sisters used to scold her on the ground that she had brought very little dowery. The non-petitioner also used to beat her on this ground. It was also alleged that he was in the habit of drinking and torturing the petitioner and at times even did not provide her with food. Her case further was that he used of demand for further dowery in the form of hard cash amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, a radio set a motor cycle and other articles and when the petitioner showed her inability to comply with his demands, he used to beat her. At last, t...
Farooq HussaIn Vs. Mohammed Ismail
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN467
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a defendants' civil second appeal against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur upholding the judgment and decree of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur.2. The plaintiff respondents instituted a suit against defendant-appellants and respondents No. 4 to 15 with the allegations that a Haveli situate at Sawai Madhopur was purchased by the plaintiffs from Mst. Fatima Begum widow of Mirza Liyakat Ali Beg, Jagirdar on 18th September, 1958 for Rs. 5000/- by a registered sale deed and since then the plaintiffs are in possession. But defendants No. 2 to 12 with the assistance of other Muslims wanted to take forcible possession over two Kothas and Ikdare in the Haveli shown by Nos. 1 to 4 in the site plan, upon which the plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction against them but during the pendency of that suit these defendants on 14-7-1959 took forcible possession over the said premises. The plaintiffs and thei...
Hari Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)167
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. The petitioner was serving as substantive Naik in No. 5. Training Company, the Grenadiers Regimental Centre, Jabalpur. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 9-4-1976 for committing an unnatural offence with Rect. Surender Singh District Court Martial was ordered, who after the enquiry and examining a number of witnesses by both the sides and hearing arguments found by his order dated 23-7-1976 the petitioner not guilty. The confirming authority did not agree with the findings and remanded the case to the District Court Martial for reassessment of the evidence in the light of the observations made therein under Section 160 of the Army Act and Rule 68 of the Army Rules. After the remand of the case, the District Court Martial recorded fresh evidence and recalled some of the witnesses earlier examined and found the petitioner guilty by his order dated 17 11-1976 and he was sentenced to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment in the civil jail in addition to being dis...
Alarakh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1794
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The police had put up a challan for offences Under Sections 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner Alarakh on the allegations that the accused had forged the documents in respect of a motor vehicle No. RSM 2893 (truck) and had also tampered with the chasis number and the year of manufacture, _etc., thereof. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and fixed the case for hearing arguments for framing charges against the accused. However, before the arguments for this purpose could be heard, the learned P.P. moved an application requesting the learned Magistrate to permit him to produce some more documents, namely, some complaints filed by one Asgar Ali to the Superintendent of Police, Pali and copies of the statements of certain witnesses recorded by the officer in charge out post Sojat Road in connection with the aforesaid reports. The learned Counsel for the accused objected to these documents being produced at this stage as according to...
Radha Madhav Gum Factory Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN13
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 26-11-84 by which he set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, accepting the final report submitted by the police against the petitioner in respect of the offence Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stocks & Prohibition of Export) Order, 1979 (here in after called 'the Order of 1979').2. The Enforcement Officer, Churu, filed a report before the Kotwali Police Station Churu, on 6-8-83 alleging that the firm M/s Radha Madhav Gum Factory through its partners Narayan Prasad & Ors. had exported 6800 bags of Gowar churi out of Rajasthan in between 27-10-1979 to 21-11-1979. in contravention of the Order of 1979. The police after investigations, filed a final report on the ground that there was no prohibition against the export of Gowar churi and it was only with regard ...
Shiv Kumar S/O Shri Parbhati Lal Vs. Smt. Sushila W/O Shiv Kumar Saini ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)605
Dinkar Lal Mehta, J.1. This case is having a chequred history of the litigation between husband and wife. Earlier divorce petition has been filed and when interim maintenance was granted by the Court, the divorce petition was withdrawn.2. Subsequently the wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr. PC. Taking a long time the application has been decided by the learned District and Sessions Judge on 13-2-1985. Learned Sessions Judge granted Rs. 125/-p.m. for the maintainance of wife and 200/- p.m. for the maintenance of remaining three children. Thus the total amount of Rs. 325/-p.m. was granted on account of maintenance. Persuasive method prevailed in the Court today and both the parties have come to the compromise on the following terms and conditions:(1) That the petitioner shall pay the total arrears of the maintenance accrued upto this date to the non-petitioner within a period of two months;(2) That the amount shall be deposited in the Bank in a Fixed Deposit and the in erest ...
Jai Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)341
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. Petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector (Technical) Police Wireless Station, Barmer. He was served with memorandum dated 19-4-1975 along with charge-sheet and statement of allegations. He submitted his reply vide his representation dated 17-12-1975. Regular inquiry was held against him and he was found guilty of the charges and penalty of removal was passed by order dated 14-4-1976 (Ex. 10). Petitioner preferred an appeal which was decided by order dated 27-8-1977 wherein it was held that the charges have been proved against the petitioner but the penalty of removal imposed on the petitioner was excessive, and, therefore, he set aside that penalty and stopped increments for 2 years and it was further ordered that petitioner will be taken on duty but he will not be paid any salary during his absence, except that the intervening period will be treated as pay without leave, after deducting the leave which were due with the petitioner and this absence from duty...
Budha Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)614
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. I do not find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The conviction is maintained.2. Shri Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in Madania v. State of Rajasthan reported in RCC 131. This Court has extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to Madania, who was convicted Under Section 54(d). This court released Madania accused looking to the fact that the occurrence has taken place seven years before the decision. This Court has also taken into consideration the old age of the petitioner.3. In the instant case, it was submitted that the incident has taken place in the year 1976 & more than eight years have elapsed and the petitioner is facing the agony of trial since then. The petitioner is having a wife and three children. He is the bread-earner. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mathur states...
Lichman Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)613
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance Under Section 319 Cr.PC only after recording the evidence in the court. It is not necessary to record the evidence even when cognizance can be taken after recording the evidence of one of the witnesses.3. He has invited may attention to the case of Sheoram Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1982 Cr.LR (Raj.) 637.4. This Court has interpreted the meaning of the word 'evidence'. This Court held that the 'evidence' means statements recorded before court of enquiry or trial. It does not include statements recorded by police or recorded at instance of police. This court also held that cognizance can be taken on a single statement.5. In the instant case, it was submitted that no statement has been recorded either during the inquiry or trial and as such the learned Magistrate has no jurisd...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »