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.
Mithya and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN343
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A typical case of utter ignorance of law resulting in abuse of process of court and consequential harassment to the litigants, has come to lime light, by this miscellaneous petition of 15 Meenas belonging to the Scheduled Tribes of the Police Station, Gadmor, District Sawai Madhopur of Rajasthan.2. At the stage of admission itself I have beard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Deputy Government Advocate S.N. Kumawat in respect of the new dimensions of validity of continuation of 107 Cr. P.C. proceedings after expiry of notice period of 6 months, issued under Section 111 Cr. P.C.3. The precise point relating to above which I propose to decide by this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would govern and be a direction to all the Magistrates of Rajasthan, relating to the proceedings under Sections 107 to 116 Cr. P.C.4. Before I proceed to decide that on the broader horizon, I would like to mention the facts of the present case, whi...
Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)31
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Krishna Kumar has come up in appeal and challenges the correctness of the judgment passed on November 13, 1975 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting and sentencing him as under:_______________________________________________________________________________S.No. Offence u/s Sentence Awarded_______________________________________________________________________________(1) 302, IPC Imprisonment for life ;(2) 27, Arms Act Six months' rigrous imprisonment ;(3) 25(1)(a), Arms Act Six months' rigorous imprisonment._______________________________________________________________________________2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW 13 Mam Kauri was married to Basti Ram and from him she gave birth to three sons Ugmi Ram, PW 3 Asha Rare, PW 5 Hajari Ram and one daughter Mst. Chando. PW 2 Rustome Hind, aged about 11 years (in October, 1975) is the son of PW 3 Asha Ram The appellant Krishna Kumar is the son of Smt. Chando and thus grandson of P...
Rameshwar Lal S/O Ram Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN711
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. PC on the ground that since in a civil court case is pending and injunction order has been granted, the criminal court should not entertain a case under Section 145 Cr. PC.2. Prima facie the submission is attractive and plausible and deserves consideration. I have therefore, examined the case thoroughly and asked the learned Counsel to read the order of injunction passed by the civil court. This order of injunction of the civil court, part and portion of which has been reproduced and extracted by the criminal court expressly mentioned that it is not possible to say that which party is in possession. The learned Magistrate on this ground held that since the civil court has not been able to prima facie decide which party was in possession and further since the civil court has directed the maintenance of status quo only, therefore there is every chance of blood shed between the parties.3. I am in agreement ...
Satya NaraIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)144
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. I have perused the challan papers. Statement of Ashok Singh, Nawalkishore, Shanker, Damodar, Ramgopal, Indralal and Vinod, were recorded under Section. 174 Cr.PC on 3-9-86, on the date of occurrence. All these witnesses stated that deceased Nirmala committed suicide. No allegation of ill treat-mentor beating was made by either of the above named witnesses against the petitioner who is husband of the deceased lady. In the challan filed in the court, the names of Ashok Singh and Damodar Prasad, have not been cited in the list of witnesses. In the statement recorded Under Section 161, Cr. PC. Nawal Kishore and Shankarlal have stated that the petitioner used to ill treat his wife. Few other witnesses who have been examined Under Section 161, Cr. PC have also stated the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the case of Hajari Lal and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR 956 in which it was observed...
Ram Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)112
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Petitioner perferred this writ petition challenging the order transfer Annex-3 dated 30-6-1979 from the Municipal Board, Ganga Shahar to the Municipal Board, Khertal. He has challenged the validity of the Rules but his case is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan 1979 RLW 441. In this case the validity of the Sections 304, 297(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Municipal Sub-ordinate and Ministrial Services Rules, 1963 has been upheld. Therefore, this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.2. Mr. Singhvi appearing for the petitioner submits that the transfer order does not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 38 of the aforesaid Rules. I have gone through the rule 38 which only enables the Director, Local Bodies to transfer the incumbent from one Municipality to another when it is considered necessary in the efficiency of the services. It is not the requireme...
Prabhu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)498
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.2. The offence under Section 308, IPC is amply proved against the appellant. It is proved from the evidence of Jamnadass that the accused inflicted a khife blow causing stab wound whereby omentum came out. This injury has been described as grievous and dangerous to life. The statement of Jamnadass gets corroboration from the medical evidence. Although, the knife has been recovered but due to dis-intergation of blood, the chemical report is of no avail to the prosecution. But the blood has been found on the clothes of the injured. The witnesses Mehar Singh and Jangir Singh have no doubt been declared hostile but on that basis the statement of the injured cannot be discarded. The length and width of the injury is not material but it is the depth which is material. The depth of the stab wound appears to be quite sufficient. The appellant was also earlier convicted for the offence...
Dalla and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ42; 1987(2)WLN226
S.S. Byas, J.1. Since both the appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated July 16, 1986, they were heard together and are decided by a common . judgment. By the judgment aforesaid, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Dalla under Section 302 and accused Smt. Bhanwari under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. The Sessions Judge also convicted the accused Dalla under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The accused have come up in appeals and challenge their conviction.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased Kishan Singh Rajput was the father of P.W. 5 Raisingh, P.W. 6 Khemsing, P.W. 7...
Asik Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN108
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. For realsing maintenance granted by the Magistrate under Section 125, Cr. P.C. Mst. Raisa prayed to the Magistrate to get the property movable and immovable attached and sold. Asik Ali's father-in-law of Mst. Raisa has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. on the ground that without specification of the property attachment has been done and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed in this arbitrary manner.2. After hearing Mr. Tibrewal I find that the enquiry is already going on in this respect because the last order sheet copy of which has been produced by Mr. Tibrewal himself dated 16th May, 1986 mentioned that summary enquiry is required to be done and the objector should produce his evidence on 7th June, 1986.3. Mr. Tibrewal is not in a position to submit that what happened after this date and actually what is the stage of the case.4. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that Mst. Raisa cannot be left high and dry. Non-pa...
Rajesh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN171
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated 9-6-1981 whereby the learned lower court has held accused-appellants Rajesh and Rampal guilty of the offence under Section 396 I.P.C. and has sentenced them to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo 6 month's rigorous imprisonment. Although, the learned lower court has held that these accused-appellants are guilty of the offence under Sections 397 and 399 I.P.C. also but they have not been separately sentenced for these offences because they have been sentenced under Section 396 I.P.C. However, accused Rajesh, Prabhudayal and Sheri have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 120B read with Section 397 I.P.C.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are: that Kalu Ram and Kashiram belong to village Moongthala situated in the jurisdiction of P.S. Abu Road. Kashiram is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Moongthala. K...
Sukh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)493
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. An application has been filed by the learned Counsel for the appellant for dispensing with the production of the certified copy of the judgment under appeal. Since that judgment has already been reported in Budha Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , the production of the certified copy is dispensed with.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Addl. Government Advocate.3. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the application of his adult son Dhanna Ram is pending consideration before the allotting authority-cum-Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Suratgarh. All that he wants is that the application should be considered in the light of the judgment recorded by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 201/84 Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan decided on 28-2-1985 along with connected appeals. There is no doubt that the allotting authority will have to take into consideration this judgment a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »