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.
Nihal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1986
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)508
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-1-1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby he maintained the conviction and sentence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. The petitioner was found guilty under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shri Kutubuddin Khan Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner on 18-12-1676 and he took the sample of Til Oil weighing 375 Grams for Rs. 3.00 from Nihal Chand accused petitioner. After observing necessary formalities in the presence of motbir, the sample was sealed and sent to the Public Analyst, as is required tinder the Food Adulteration Act. Ex. P 5 report was received from the Public Analyst, who found the sample to be adulterated. Necessary sanction for filing the complaint was obtained vide Ex P 6, which was given if favour of Shri Kutubuddin Food Inspector. A complaint was filed in...
Bharosi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN548
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur (Camp : Gangapur City) dated 10-1-1980 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the order of conviction of the petitioner passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur on 5-10-1979.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Food Inspector, Karauli inspected the shop of the petitioner on 6-7-1976 and took the sample of milk. The sample of milk was sent to the Public Analys who after analysis found that the milk was adulterated. It has been found by the Public Analyst that the milk contained 16 percent of the added water. He further found that the milk contents were as follows:(1) Fat Content 4.6%(2) Solids non-fat 7.52%(3) Cane Sugar and Starch Nil3. On the basis of the said analysis the milk was held to be adulterated by the Public Analyst, and therefore, a complaint was lodged against the accused petitioner in the Court of C...
Vijay Singh Vs. Ladu Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)131
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case of the accused-respondents. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City under his judgment dated October 28, 1982 under Section 256 Cr. P.C. dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused-respondents.2. The facts, in brief, are that a complaint under Section 448, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Pipar City against the accused respondents on April 21, 1982, wherein it was stated that on April 9, 1982 in the evening at about 4 p.m., the accused-respondents came in a tracter, entered illegally in the Bada of the complainant and obstructed his way with the help of the thorny bushes which they have brought with them. When the complainant asked them not to do so then the accused-respondents gave beating to him. In support of the complaint, the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and of Jabarsi ...
Mani Ram Banwarilal and Etc. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj73; 1986(1)WLN16
ORDERAshok Kumar Mathur, J.1. In both the writ petitions identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore they are disposed of by this common order.2. For the sake of convenience the facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 998 of 1982 are taken into consideration. The petitioner is existing operator of Hanumangarh Sirsa Inter-State route holding one non-temporarystage carriage permit in the joint name of Mani Ram and Banwarilal. At present they are plying their vehicle from Hanumangarh to Surowala because the State of Haryana curtailed the route lying in the Haryana State. The R.T.A. Bikaner in its meeting held on 3rd Feb., 1981 granted contract carriage permits one each in favour of non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 11 with regard to Haryana to Fatehpur via Satipura Dholia etc. without notifying the same in the Rajpatra so as to afford the opportunity for filing objections. Aggrieved against this grant the petitioners filed the revision petition before the State Appellate Tribunal ...
Gafoor Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN668
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Gafoor appellant has challenged his conviction under Section 308 IPC and sentence of 18 months' rigorous imprisonment.2. This is one of these cases where the facts are not in dispute. The incident happened at about 6-7 a.m. on July 17, 1975. The injured Umed demanded Rs. 90/- from the accused on account of the price of Kharia. The accused told him that he had no money with him. The complainant persisted in his demand. At this, there was altercation and Ummed caught hold of accused by neck and them accused Gafoor gave two knife blows to Ummed in his abdomen. The whole version has been given out clearly by PW 3 Ummed. The relevant portion from the judgment of trial court is reproduced here which reads as under:et:c us eqyfte xQqj dk xyk idM+k vkSj nks ykr xQqj ds mEesn ekjh A xokg bLrxkl ?kVh us chp&cpko; djus dh dksf'k'k dh] fQj Hkh mEesn ugh ekuk vkSj nkSM+dj nks twrh xQqj dks ekjh A ?kVuk ls iwoZ eqyfte o et:c mEesn es nkar dkVh jksVh FkhA et:e xokg mEesn okds ds...
Smt. Jimani and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)1
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This revision, arises out of proceedings Under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the following circumstances. The petitioners here in filed application Under Section 145 Cr. PC in the court of the Executive Magistrate, Nagaur against Mohanlal the non-petitioner here in. The case was registered as Criminal case No. 21 of 1976. The learned Magistrate made an enquiry into the matter so far as the sole possession of the subject of dispute is concerned. Under his order dated 4-3-1981 the learned Magistrate allowed the application and came to a finding prior to the date of the application was filed the petitioner here in was in possession of the subject in dispute. He declared the possession of the petitioner and directed the non-petitioner Mohan Lal not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners. A revision petition was filed by Mohan Lal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur and...
Shivraj Chhangani Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)3
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14th February, 1979 (Annexure-6), whereby a direction has been given that the petitioner should be relieved from the post of Head Master, Sadul Pushkarna Uchhchya Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bikaner (here in after referred as the School) and regular selection for the post of Head Master of this School be undertaken.2. The petitioner was appointed as Teacher in the Matric Grade on 1st July, 1968 and thereafter promoted on the post of Trained Graduate Grade on 1st July, 1968 and Senior Teacher on 1st July, 1969. On retirement of one Shri Mangalchand Acharya from the post of Head Master of the School, the petitioner came to be selected by the Management Committee for the post of Head Master in the said School on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit. Thereafter he came to be appointed as Head Master in pursuant of Resolution No. 9 dated 15th June, 1973 of the Management on a temporary basis for a period of three...
Siv NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN536
Farooq Hasan, J.1. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 64/74 convicted the accused-appellants under Section 326, 326/34 324 and 324/34, IPC and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment as mentioned in his judgment. Aggrieved by this order of conviction the present appellants have filed this appeal.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that there was a dispute between the complainant party on the one hand and the accused party on the other in respect of possession of the field bearing Khasra numbers 1471 and 1474 situated in village Patunda. The above fields are known by the name of Hirapuri. Attached to this land in the northern side there is a small piece of another land which is known as Kankar. A part of this Kankar land is said to have been in possession of the complainant party. On 3-7-1973 the complainant party sent three Halies in the morning to plough the above land known as Hirapuri. The accused persons did not allow the Halies to plough the...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Dhan Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)5
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 31, 1977 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta. Under the aforesaid judgment the learned Magistrate in a complaint case which was tried as a warrant case, acquitted the accused respondent to the charge Under Section 325 IPC.2. The accused respondent Dhanraj at the relevant time was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police and was posted as Station House Officer, Degana while Ramnarayan and others were suspected of having committed an offence Under Sections 323, 332 and 395 IPC and FIR No. 35/69 in relation to the occurrence dated 24-8-1969 was registered in police station, Degana. Mr. Ram Narayan and others were wanted in that case and Dhanraj was after their arrest. The case of Ram Narayan the complainant is that when on 3-9-1969 they were sitting in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Merta in connection with the hearing of their bail application, the accused respondents with two constables Iq...
Hardev Singh Sandhu Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1515; 1986(1)WLN9
ORDERMahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. In this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. a question is involved as to whether, if under after investigation a report under Section 169, Cr. P.C. is made by the Station House Officer of a police station and a protest petition is filed by the complainant, whether the person who is accused of an offence and against whom the police have found that there are no reasons to proceed, has a right of taking part in the proceedings or not?2. The facts are not very much disputed and lie in a narrow compass, A complaint was filed by Shri Sardar Hardeo Singh Sandhu, Advocate, who has personally argued this case before me. The said complaint was filed against Dr. S. M. Gupta and others under various Sections of the Penal Code like 284, 307, 326, 328, 418, 440, 467, 491 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. It relates to some acts of negligence, omission or commission, attributed to the accused persons in conducting operation upon the complainant Shri H. S. Sandh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »