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.
FakrudIn Vs. Abdul Rahim and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN495
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This is an application Under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused non-petitioners by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota under his various orders passed under Sections 439 & 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned advocate for the petitioner has only pressed this application so far as the grant of bail to two accused non-petitioners by the Sessions Judge, Kota under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under his order dated 1st July, 1985. I will therefore, confine myself to the order of the Sessions Judge and this application is therefore, confined for cancellation of pre-arrest bail to the accused non-petitioner Abdul Rahim.2. The relevant facts are that the Sub-Inspector recorded the Parcha Bayan of the injured Rafiq aged 18 years. In the said statement, Shri Rafiq stated that on 11th June, 1985 at about 7 p.m. he was returning from the Maszid after offering prayer and...
Amolak Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN461
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 21-8-79 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk on 26-2-77. The accused-petitioner was convicted Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to further under go 3 months imprisonment.2. In this case it is not disputed that the shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Food Inspector on 20-8-73 and sample of Til oil was taken by the Food Inspector Shri Shabbir Ahmed (PW 1), which was purchased by him. Form F-6 was given to the petitioner in respect of this transaction. The petitioner before signing the form (Ex. P 1) mentioned that the oil, the sample of which was taken was Ganpati Mark oil and the same was purchased from M/s Ratan Oil Mills, Jaipur. On Ex.P3 also the same obj...
Amara Ram S/O Ruda Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN515
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr. PC against the judgment and order dated 17th September, 1985 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month, rigorous imprisonment.2. An FIR was lodged on 13-5-1984 by Ashok Kumar s/o Banshi deceased, Resident of Bhenslana at Police station Rainwal at 9.30 pm. It has been stated that on 13-5-1984 at about 3.00 p.m., complainant's father was sitting at the shop of Gulab Chand Kumawat and he was also standing there. Accused Amara Jat was talking to Gopu at the shop of Bodu. At that time, at the shop of Gulab, apart from the complainant, his father, Kana Ram Kumawat, Ganga Ram, Raj Singh and Bhagwan Sahai were also sitting. At that time accused Amara Ram came all of a sudden with a stick in his hand and struck 4 blows by stick on the hea...
Gulam Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)595
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Office has reported the defect that the stay application is not accompanied with an affidavit. Reference has been made to Rule 136 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. Clause (2) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 136 in my opinion does not apply to stay application submitted in criminal revision. It applies to stay for execution of proceedings. This shows it applies to civil appeals or civil revision & this provision will not apply to stay application filed in criminal revision.2. The office objection is therefore over ruled....
Bhanwar Singh Vs. Navrang Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj63; 1986(1)WLN376
ORDERV.S. Dave, J.1. This comes up for the disposal of two applications filed on behalf of respondent, Navrang Singh, one filed under Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby it has been prayed that the election petition be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 81(1) of the Act. By another application it has been prayed that Rule 4 of the rules regarding election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1-951 framed by the High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 46 of the Rajasthan High Court ordinance be struck down as the same are beyond the powers available to the High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution and the said rule is violative of Section 81(1) of the Act as it overrides this provision. In fact the second application was filed during the course of hearing of the earlier application when the petitioner had taken stand that the election petition has been pres...
Prahlad Lal Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN319
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. I have gone through the proposed judgment of learned brother Farooq Hasan, J. with whom brother Kasliwal, J. has agreed. The learned Single Judge has made a reference to the larger Bench as in his opinion there are two different views of two Judges sitting singly in Avinashi Lal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1930 Cr. LR. page 515 and Prakash Chandra Ajmera v. State of Rajasthan 1984 R L R 842 on the interpretation of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (No. X of 1955) (for short, the Act). As in the proposed judgment of my brother Judges agreement has been recorded with the view taken in Prakash Chandra Ajmera's case (supra) with the reasoning of which I am unable to persuade myself I will like to express on the controversy involved in this case.2. Under Section 7 of the Act any person who contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the Act is punishable. The word 'person' is of wide connotation. The term includes an individual, corporatio...
Amb Singh and anr. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN418
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated October 27, 1978 (Anx. 4) whereby the Board of Revenue allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated October 20, 1975 (Anx. 2) and restored the order of the learned SDO dated May 31, 1975 (Anx. 1). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhinmal decided the petitioners ceiling ease by his order Anx. 1. He recorded that the portion is recognisable and acceptable but as the petitioners being the co-tenants are entitled to equal shares. On that basis the Sub-Divisional Officer determined the ceiling area of the petitioners. Each of the petitioners was entitled to 37.12 standard acres considering the number of members of the family of Jaisingh as 3, he found that no part of share of his land is resumable whereas the number of the family members of the petitioner Amb Singh was less than five so he found that 7.12 standard acres land is resumable. Consequently he ...
State Vs. Chhoga Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)7
1. This is an appeal Under Section 378(1) Cr. PC. against the judgment dated May 1, 1980 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which he acquitted the accused respondent and reversed the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate to 1st Class, Udaipur, in Cr. Original Case No. 651/1974.2. For the present purpose the material facts are there--The accused respondent was prosecuted for offence Under Section 54/67 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (here in after referred to 'the Act') so he was found in possession of working still illicit liquor. A challan was presented by the Excise Inspector. The Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur, took cognizance of the offence and tried the case. He by his order dated July 4, 1978, convicted the accused respondent Under Section 54 of the Act and sentenced him to 4 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default there of to suffer rigorous imprisonment for month. The accused-respondent filed an appeal and th...
Chunnilal Vs. Revenue Appellate Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)272
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner got the Abadi land sold to him by the Gram Panchayat, Morcha by private negotiations, for a sum of Rs. 33.60 paisa, by order dated 30-9-1973. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted permission to make construction. The land was abutting and adjoining his property. In pursuance to the permission construction was made by the petitioner. On a complaint the Collector, Udaipur sent a notice Exhibit-1 dated 6-9-1977 to the petitioner and, therefore, by order dated 19-10-1977 directed the Tehsildar to take action in accordance with law and he upheld the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer where by the sale was held to be invalid. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The revision petition was rejected on 28-10-1978. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the order passed by the Panchayat regarding transfer of Abadi land under Rule 226 of the Rajasthan Panchayat an...
Udai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)688
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. Udasingh has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore for the offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1500/, in default of payment of fine he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Further it was ordered that if the fine was realised then it should be paid to the heirs of deceased Bhanwarsingh. Two appeals have been preferred against this judgment dated June 5, 1982. Accused Udaisingh has preferred a jail appeal against his conviction while the State has preferred an appeal for securing his conviction under Section 302, IPC. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment and Udaisingh shall, here in after be referred to as the appellant.2. Appellant Udaisingh was running a hotel of meat and 'Roti' at Bhinmal in a room arranged by PW 2 Mohanlal. He had also arranged for the utensils and the necessary furniture for this purpose. On January 6, 1982, at about 8 p.m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »