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.
Ram NaraIn Vs. Loku Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN6
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This revision petition involves an interesting question of law as to whether in a complaint case if the Magistrate decides to postpone the issues of process under Section 202(1) Cr.PC he can direct the investigation to be made by a police officer without first examining the complainant ?2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the above enumerated point are these. Lokuram non-petitioner filed a complaint in the court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh on 14-10-1981 against Ramnarain, the petitioner herein and 8 others in all numbering nine under Sections 494 and 494/109 IPC. The learned Magistrate did not examine the complainant under Section 200 Cr. PC and thought it proper to postpone the issue of process till the investigation was made by the police officer. He, therefore sent the case under Section 202(1) Cr. PC to the SHO police station, Anupgarh. The report of the SHO was received and on 22-10-1981 the learned Magistrate took cognizan...
Bhanu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN563
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. These two appeals; one by the State and the other by the accused-persons arise out of the same judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar on May 24,1975, where by, the learned lower court has acquitted accused Sultan and Dhonkal of all the offences with which they were charge by giving them the benefit of doubt. It has, however, held accused Bhanu guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. He was also convicted under Section 447 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one month. Accused Surjaram and Hajari were convicted under Sections 447 and 323 IPC and Mst. Shanti and Mst. Saraswati were convicted under Section 447 IPC. However, looking to the circumstances of the case in which the offences were committed and having regard to the character of the accused and in the absence of any previous conviction recorded against them, the learned lower court has granted them the benef...
Onkar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)145
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at the admission stage and I am of the opinion that so far as this application on behalf of Onkar Singh is concerned, it deserves to be allowed, but so far as Jangir Singh is concerned, his application has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.2. For the disposal of this application, the facts, though short, are relevant and are these. The two petitioners Onkar Singh and Jangir Singh were tried by the learned Additional District Judge Sri Ganganagar in Sessions case No. 55/71 and the Additional Sessions Judge, under his judgment dated May 21, 197, acquitted both the petitioners of the charges under Sections 307 and 332 of the IPC. Onkar Singh petitioner was also acquitted of a charge under Section 28 of the Arms Act. The learned Judge, in operative part of the aforesaid judgment, ordered that the gun recovered may be returned to Onkar Singh, after e...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN438
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara dated October 3, 1977 whereby the learned lower court has acquitted the accused Mohanlal of the offence under Section 409 IPC.2. The facts of this case briefly stated are that accused-respondent Mohanlal was working as a Patwari in Patwar Circle, Nathdwara from August 7, 1972 to January 18, 1973. During this period, he collected a sum ofRs. 688/- on August 21, 1972 vide receipt No. 8, Book No.25300 from one Hiralal Soni. He also collected a sum of Rs. 344/- on October 23, 1972 vide receipt No. 9, Book No. 25300 from one Bhanwarlal Soni. This amount related to Sawankar loan advanced to these persons. Actually, this was the amount of the third instalment which was due from these two persons. Accused Respondent Mohanlal after collecting the aforesaid sums did not make any entry in the Cash Receipt Register. As per Rule 110(2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Rules, 1957,...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Dhania S/O Ladu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN408
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Merta, by his judgment dated April 14, 1975 acquitted accused Dhania (aged about 17 years) of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 376 of the Penal Code. The State has come-up in appeal and challenges the acquittal.2. Put briefly, the prosecution case is that in the noon of February 22, 1974, PW 4 Mst. Shanti (aged about 12 years) and her brother Omiya (PW 7) aged about 8 years, were grazing their live-stock in the field of one Dayram Meghwal situate nearly three miles from their village Panchari (district Nagaurj The field of the accused is situate nearby. The accused came to Mst. Shanti caught her hands and pulled her down. He was wearing a Dhoti which he then put off. The girl was wearing an under-wear. The accused forcibly pulled the waist cord of the underwear. The cord gave way. The accused then stripped the girl and sat over her naked thighs. He then forcibly ravished her. The girl tried to resist and the accused gave...
Moti Lal Bairwa Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN287
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of the alleged offence, the accused was 18 years of age and Section 295 IPC is only punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both. He also submits that it is a case which could have been dealt with under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as well as Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There was no previous conviction on record against the accused-petitioner and in a case where the accused is less than 21 years of age and is found guilty and convicted for an offence which is not punishable with imprisonment for life, it is the mandate of law that the case of the accused should be dealt with under the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act as well as Section 360 Cr. PC. If the court is of the opinion that the benefit should not be so extended, it is incumbent upon the co...
Sukhi Vs. Chandra Sen and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)580
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This civil second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 1982, passed by the learned Addl, District Judge, Deeg(Bharatpur) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 31 of 1981, confirming the judgment dated 13th August, 1981, passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg in Civil Suit No. 110 of 1979.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit against the defendant-appellant claiming that they had possession over the disputed land described in the site-plan and annexed with the plaint. It was submitted that the defendant-appellant had no right over the disputed land, but he made an encroachment upon the land. The plaintiff's, therefore, filed a suit for possession against the defendant on the basis of the previous possession and subsequent dispossession by the defendants. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that it was his ancestral property and he was enjoying the posses...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Pritam Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)528
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The respondent Pritam Singh who was accused before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sriganganagar, was acquitted of an offence under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the State has preferred this appeal against his acquittal.2. The fact of the case may be mentioned very briefly as the acquittal has been based upon the fact that the report of the Forensic Laboratory, does not make it clear that the sample examined and found to be liquor containing 49.37 under proof Ethyl Alcohol was the same which recovered from the possession of the respondent.3. On December 21, 1978, the respondent along with one another was apprehended by Ram Swaroop, S.H.O. of Police Station Hindumalkot. The respondent was found to be in possession of a tube containing about 6 or 7 bottles of illicit liquor. This liquor was seized by the S.H.O. and part of the contents were removed to two bottles. In one of the bottles the amount preserved was 250 ml and both bottles were sealed & the...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Saleem
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN777
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This appeal against the judgment of Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur dated July 16, 1977 raises a very short legal question regarding the applicability of Section 300 Cr.PC.2 The facts leading to this appeal briefly stated are that the complainant Mohd. Ishaq was living in his sister's house situated at Subhash Chowk, Ralanada, Jodhpur for the past about 14 years. It is alleged that his brother Saleem and his son Safiq came to his house on December 21, 1975 and Dec. 26, 1975 and asked him to vacate the house. When he did not agree to their request, Saleem and Sadiq gave beating to him, opened the lock of his house and ousted him from it on February 8, 1976. He lodged a report about this incident in the Police. After usual investigation, the Police filed a challan under Section 453 IPC. However, he also filed a private complaint regarding the same offence in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur. The case was registered against the accused persons under ...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Narendra Singh Verma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN1
A.K. Mathur, J.1. In all the three writ petitions similar question of law is involved, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the appreciation of controversy, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1583 of 1979 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Narendra Singh Verma and Ors. are taken into consideration. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 15th January, 1979 (Annexure 4), 2nd April, 1979 (Annexure 6). The appellant non-petitioner No. 1 was holding the post of Second-in-Command in Border Home Guards at Bikaner with effect from 8th October, 1977 under the control of the Battalion Commandant Shri D. Ramdesani. While working under D. Ramdesani an adverse report was given to the appellant non-petitioner No. 1 and the same were communicated to him by the Reviewing Officer, the Deputy Director Home Guards, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide its letter dated 30th May, 1978. The appell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »