Rajasthan Court October 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.
Kishoria Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)141
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant. He however, urged that the appellant is in custody since 30-7-1982. More than four years have passed, his sentence may be reduced to the period of his custody.3. The appellant has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 394, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 324, IPC two years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 341, IPC one month's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.4. The appellant is in custody since the date of his arrest and more than four years have passed. In my opinion, the sentence upto the period of his custody is adequate.5. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The convictions of the appellant are maintained and for offence under Se...
Gurucharan Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)24
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders Annexs. 2, 4 and 5 dated 6-4-1985, 15-7-1985 and 5-11-1985 respectively.2. The petitioner after completion of the necessary training was appointed as Mechanic Grade-II on 6-9-1976 at Bikaner by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was confirmed on the post of Mechanic Grade-II w. e. f. 15-6-1978. The petitioner was transferred to Hanumangarh, Ajmer, Nagaur and in the year 1983 to Jhunjhunu. The petitioner was on casual leave from 4-1-1983 to 8-1-1983 and this leave was taken from the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Jhunjhunu. After that the petitioner could not join his duties on account of his illness. After expiry of his leave a notice was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on 21-3-1983 for joining the petitioner on duty. The petitioner did not join his duties. Since the petitioner did not join his duties the petitioner was removed from service by the order dated 6-4-1983 by the Divis...
Babura Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)159
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case.2. The offence under Section 392 read with Section 397, IPC is amply proved against the appellant. The appellant robed Mst. Jetu of her ornaments, after inflicting as many as 11 injuries, out of which two were grievous hurts. He removed the ornaments, from the ears and nose. The case was registered against the accused, after medical examination of Mst. Jetu. The accused was arrested and the ornaments of Mst. Jetu were recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the evidence thoroughly and I agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. In my opinion, this appeal has no force, so, it is hereby dismissed....
Mansur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)155
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Mr. B. Advani is appointed as Amicus Curiae.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case.3. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376, IPC and has sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.4. The occurrence took place at about 12 in the night on 14-9-1983, when the prosecutrix Mst. Phula was sleeping. The appellant had visited the 'Bhajan Mandali' which was going on at a distance of 200 ft. from the place of occurrence. The accused had left the `Bhajan Mandali' sometime before the occurrence. He was armed with a dagger. The accused threatened Mst. Phula and forcibly committed rape on her. Thereupon, she raised an alarm, which attracted the witnesses, viz., PW 3 Puja, PW 4 Naina and PW 5 Bhikna. The accused then tried to run away but h...
Poonma Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)736
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 14-3-1986 (Annx. 3).2. Non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 filed a suit against the petitioner under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in the court of S.D.O. cum Assistant Collector, Balotra regarding possession of the land in dispute and damages for Khasra No. 205 measuring 34 bighas and 7 biswas located at village Mavari Tehsil Siwana District Barmer on the ground that the petitioner defendant has sold the land in question to non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and it was also averred that the land in question was taken by the petitioner for cultivation @ Rs. 250/- per year. The petitioner defendant filed a written-statement and alleged that he has not sold the land to non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 nor he gave possession of the land in question and he is in cultivatory possession of the land in question. It is alleged that the land was mortgaged for a sum of ...
Sunil Kumar Alias Guddu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)655
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated March 19, 1980 convicting the appellant Sunil Kumar under Sections 394 and 353. IPC and sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo 4 months' like imprisonment on the first count and two months' rigorous imprisonment on the second count.2. The case relates to an accident alleged to have taken place at about 8.30 p.m. on August 16, 1978, in which the passenger bus No. RRM 8874 was looted on a public highway. The said bus was proceeding from Bundi to Bijoli. When it stopped near mile stone 20, two passengers got down and three persons boarded the bus. When the bus proceeded further, Balkarsingh asked the condcutor to take the bus in a lonely side. He also fired the gun towards the conductor. The driver, therefore took the bus in a lonely side. Balkarsingh and his two companions th...
Shambhu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)735
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order (Annx. 3) dated 2-4-1985 whereby the respondent State has refused to make a reference may be set aside and a direction may be given to the respondent State to refer the matter under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Tribunal for adjudication.2. The petitioner was an employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was charge-sheeted and after regular enquiry he was found guilty of carrying passengers without ticket and thereafter on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer his services were terminated. He requested the State Government for making a reference to the Tribunal, but the State Government declined to make a reference by the order dated 2-4-1985 (Annx. 3). Against this order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the S...
Rastriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and anr. Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Spinni ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)730
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 20-11-1985 (Ex.13).2. The respondent No. 1, Rajasthan Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Gulabpura (here in after referred to as 'the Mills'), terminated the services of petitioner No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner while working in the Ring Department on 14-5-1983 at 7.45 a.m., gave beating to Shri P.K. Veervani. Assistant Maintenance Incharge. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and the charge found proved. Petitioner No. 2 submitted a representation against his termination order to respondent No. 1. Sampatsingh, another representative of the Union, protested against this and his services were also terminated. An industrial dispute arose and the State Government made a reference to the Tribunal whether the termination of Shiv Narain and Sampatsingh is valid or not. The Tribunal answered the reference in the positive and held that the termination of Shivnarain and Sampatsingh is valid. ...
Daudayal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)734
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as a teacher on 14-3-1980 by the B.D.O., Panchayat Samiti, Banner. The petitioner's services were terminated on 16-5-1980 and he was reappointed te?nporarily as a teacher for a period of six months or till the candidate selected by the R.P.S.C. is available which ever is earlier. On 29-6-1981 the B.D.O. Panchayat Samiti Banner issued an order in pursuance of the order issued by the Development Department Government of Rajasthan dated 22-6-1981 that those who were appointed before December, 1980 shall be allowed to continue. Since the petitioner was appointed prior to December 1980 the petitioner was allowed to continue. But meanwhile the State of Rajasthan cancelled the recognition of the Basic Teachers certificate obtained from U.P. equivalent to Basic S.T.C. of Rajasthan. This notification was issued on 5-4-1980. Thus, such candidates who have obtained their certificates from U.P. were not made eligible for appointment...
Subhash Chandra Meena Vs. Madan Mohan Sood and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Raj186; 1987WLN(UC)667
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The only point which has been raised and pressed by Mr, Mehrish in this appeal is that Subhash Chand Meena alone has been held liable for the compensation but in fact the compensation should also be paid by the State of Rajasthan, who was owner of the vehicle. The case which is now in dispute before this court is that the jeep belonged to State of Rajasthan and the jeep met an accident by rolling down in the canal, resulting in death of Rajiv to whom compensation has been allowed.2. The State of Rajasthan was owner of the jeep but the claim has been disallowed on the ground that jeep was not driven by the authorised driver Prem Chand At the time of the accident the appellant was going on the work of the State. The appellant is holding that the post of Assistant Engineer and since he was going on the work of the State, even if it is assumed that it was not Prem Chand but the appellant who was driving then also the State would be liable, because for one reason he was goi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »