Rajasthan Court January 1986 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Lalsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ269; 1986(1)WLN424
ORDERMahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. It is a case where there appears to be glaring abuse of the process of the Court by the Executive Magistrate, but still the State has filed this application Under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. Proceedings in Case No. 43/78 Under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Control of Gppjdas Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act') are said to be pending against the non-petitioner Lalsingh before the 'Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, in Case No. 43/78. During the course of proceedings it is said that the non-petitioner jumped bail and therefore warrant of arrest 'was issued to secure his presence and he was arrested and was produced before the Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, The Magistrate ordered that the non-petitioner on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- and a surety in the like amount, shall be released on bail. The personal and the surety bonds were submitted and an affidavit of the surety in respect of his fitness and status was also filed. T...
Panna and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ997; 1986(2)WLN238; 1987(1)WLN166; 1987WLN(UC)166
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. These two appeals by the convicts accused are directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk dt. 19th.Aug., 1976, whereby the accused were convicted and sentenced as under:2. The substantive sentences on different counts were ordered to run concurrently.3. Accused, Bheru and Panna, were acquitted Under Section 368, IPC, and co-accused, Smt. Mangali was acquitted Under Section 366/149, IPC.4. This is a typical case, where three daughters who were brought by Smt. Mangali while conducting Nata with Kelya, have been abducted by Kelya and given in Nata for money consideration to the other accused persons in spite of the fact that they were married and all the three were unwilling. The abduction took place by deceitful means when all the three daughters namely, Smt. Nandkishori, Smt. Dev (PW 9) and Smt. Ladpi (PW 6), were called from their husband's house by Kelya for taking them to a trip of Ramdevra and under that pretext, they were sold to other...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. 1. Smt. Vidyawati Devi Rathi 2. Smt. Pr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Raj)107; [1986]160ITR887(Raj)
N. M. KASLIWAL J. - An identical question of law has been referred under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in all the above-mentioned reference applications and, as such, the same are disposed of by one single order. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that by virtue of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, the term jewellery occurring in the words but not including jewellery inserted retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1963, after the words articles intended for personal and household use of the assessee in clause (viii) to section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, did not include ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum or any precious or semi-precious stone, and that such ornaments are includible in the term jewellery alter March, 1972.'In order to appreciate the controversy raised in these cases, it would be necessary to give a legislative hist...
Chhota Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN20
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nohar has convicted the accused appellant Chhota Singh under Section 307 and 326 IPC. For the first offence he has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Under the second count, i.e. Section 326 IPC the accaused has been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/-, in default of which to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution is that the houses of Gurdeosingh PW 4 and accused appellant are situated in the same locality in village Gogamedi. On August 9, 1982 at about 9 or 10 A.M. Gurdeo Singh PW 4 had brought same earth in his tractor and was unloading it infront of his house where it is alleged that the accused appellant came armed with a sword. Gurdeos...
R.B. Harlalka Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN528
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated April 15, 1985 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, who dismissed the various objections raised before him with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. It arises in the following circumstances.2. Shri O.N. Saxena, Dy. Inspector of Mines Safety, Udaipur region riled a complaint against the petitioner No. 1 R.B. Harlalka and B.N. Chouhan, petitioner No. 2, the agent Dhan Laxmi Soap Stone Mine, Khetan Business Corporation (P) Ltd. Nathdwara, Udaipur. It was stated in the complaint that during the inspection of the Dhan Laxmi Soap Stone Mines by the complainant on 6-2-3 980 it was found that creche was not provided as required by letter No. UR/J141 dated 26-2-1979 and that inspite of being given sufficient time to provide the same, the accused thus contravened Rule 2(l) of the Mines Creche Rules. It was also stated in the complaint that the accused petitioners have co...
Kamal Alias Kamlesh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN800
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. These two D.B. Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur City, dated 20th December, 1977, in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1979. State v. Kamal and 15 Ors. convicting and sentencing the appellants Namai and Kasali under Section 302, IPC to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 month's simple imprisonment.2. Kamal is appellant in D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 1978 and Kasali is appellant in D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 134 of 19783. Briefly stated, the prosecution story unfolded in the evidence is that Smt. Kalyani and her son Angad were living in the house of her father as the legal heir since Pagadi ceremoney was performed in favour of Angad, on account of which her parental relatives were not pleased with them and they wanted to grab her father's property after ousting them from the same. Kalyani (PW 4) reported orally to Sukhrojpal, Head Constable, Police-post Bama...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Laxmi NaraIn Mishra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)9
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal dated 5th December, 1982, by filing the present writ petition on 18th June, 1985. The non-petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal against the adverse remarks communicated to him before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering over the matter accepted the appeal of the non-petitioner No. 1 and expugned the remarks. The Tribunal also over ruled the objection regarding maintainability of the appeal before it. Aggrieved against this order the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present writ petition. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is belated one because the impugned order is of 1982 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 1985. There is no explanation for this delay.2. I have gone through the writ petition and I do not find any explanation offered by ...
O.P. Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)660
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Mr. Dhankar has filed the copy of the application submitted in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur for granting of bail along with 12 Annexures. These photo-stat copies of 12 Annexures were also submitted in the Sessions Court. I have perused the Annexures as well as the order of the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge in his order mentioned that whatever evidence collected by Investigating Officer till this date in the case under Section 420 IPC is not made out. He, therefore, granted anticipatory bail but put a rider on that order. The learned Sessions Judge directed that if the Investigating Officer after investigation arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has cheated the students and committed fraud, in that case they are empowered to arrest him.2. I fail to understand the rider while granting the bail application. At this moment no case is made out under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner has file...
Ram Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)10
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated October 29, 1975 whereby the learned lower court held accused Ramgopal guilty of the offence Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He has also been held guilty of the offence Under Sub-section 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and one year's rigorous imprisonment respectively for the above said two offences. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of this case briefly stated are : that on May 8, 1974 at about 8.30 P.M. accused Ramgopal was working as labourer on the tube-well of one Beharilal situated in village Sadhuwali. It is alleged that Krishna Lal s/o Amichand and Hansraj s/o Krishanlal were sitting on the hotel of Surajbhan, which is situated at the Bus-Stand. Some other persons were also sitting there. It is alleged that Hanuman and Krishnalal had...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Sugra Alias Sugar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)621
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur where by the accused respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 307, IPC.2. The case against the accused is that he on or about on 7-5-1975 at 2.30 p.m. in the village Somli fired a gun on Chotey Lal with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by the act he had caused the death to him, he would have been guilty of murder. To this charge of the offence under Section 307, IPC, the accused claimed trial.3. The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, Chhotey Lal (PW 1), Betal Singh (PW 2), Badan Singh (PW 3), Prem Singh (PW 4), Ram Charan (PW 5) and Surajbhan (PW 6). The accused in his statement has denied the prosecution allegation. According to him, he has been falsely implicated by the police, and he has examined two witnesses in defence. Sugar Singh alias Sugra, himself, examined DW 1 and Dharamjeet as DW 2.4. Accordi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »