Rajasthan Court November 1986 Judgments
Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)727
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, by this writ petition has challenged the orders (Anx.10) dated 13-3-1986 and 31-3-1986 (Anx.11) passed by the State Government. It has been prayed that the order of removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Sandwa may be set saide.2. The petitioner was elacted as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sandwa Panchyat Samiti Sujangarh, district Churu. A preliminary enquiry was held against him and thereafter, on the basis of the report of the preliminary enquiry, a regular enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the various charges as enumerated in Anx. 10 dated 13th March, 1986. It is alleged by the petitioner that on the basis of the reply filed by him, the Government came to a conclusion that no charge is proved against the petitioner. It is alleged that Minister exonerated the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him on 15-10-1985. The petitioner applied for the copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Minster ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lali and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)709
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. PC is directed against the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Neem ka Thana dated 27-9-1984 taking cognizance and issuing non bailable warrants against the applicants for the offence under Section 363, 494 and 498 IPC.2. Smt. Lali, Mahavir, Hardan, Laduram, Gyarsya, Jailaram, Ramji Lal and Kundan, all accused petitioners are being prosecuted for the above offences under Section 363, 494 and 498, IPC.3. On 12-3-1984 non-applicant Surja filed a complaint under Section 363, 365, 366, 476 and 484 and 498 IPC against applicants No. 2 to 7 and Umarao Ramswaroop and Budharam in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Neem ka Thana. This complaint was sent for investigation to the SHO Police Station Patan under Section 156(3) Cr. PC. The police Patan registered First Information Report, but in the mean time at the instance of the complainant S.P , Sikar deputed S.I. Shri Amar Singh of crime branch, for investigation in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Chalana Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)94
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. In connection with Kisan agitation in the year 1975, several persons were prosecuted on various charges. A challan for the offence under Sections 452, 453, 332, 440, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the petitioner and others in the Court of Munsif cum-Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sri Ganganagar. The agitation was withdrawn and settlement took place between the Government and the agitators. An application was, accordingly, filed by the Public Prosecutor even before the framing of the charge; for the withdrawal of the prosecution of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application by the order dated 3rd February, 1978. A revision against the aforesaid order was filed before the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, but the same was dismissed by the order dated 6th January, 1979. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. Smt. Jyoti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj157; 1987(1)WLN421
J.R. Chopra, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 4-8-1986 whereby the learned lower Court has ordered that 21 sarees, 2 quilts, two Gaddas, 12 bed-sheets, one Godrej Friz. Steel Utensils, Steel Almirah, one Sofa, one Central Table, one Watch, one Washing machine, one double-bed, two tea sets, oven and various gifts amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, one golden set weighing 5 tolas, another golden set weighing 31/2 tolas, two Kadas weighing 4 tolas, one ring weighing one tola and another ring weighing 10 grams and one chain weighing 1 1/2 tolas be returned to the wife-respondent after obtaining a receipt as they exclusively belonged to her. The learned lower Court has also-passed a decree for dissolution of the marriage but that finding or decree has not been challenged by the husband appellant in this appeal. The husband-appellant has only challenged the finding of the learned lower Court regarding delivery of the abovesaid propert...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ajeet Kaur Vs. City Magistrate
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN252
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the.parties.2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a tenant and respondent No. 5 is a land lord. Without taking note of the dispute between the landlord and the tenant's rights and about the arrears it was considered proper by this Court that the respondent No. 3 and 4 may be directed to give water and electricity connection after realisation of the dues if any. The land-lord does not come into picture at all. I think that every tenant has a right to have the electricity and water and that right cannot be denied in the modern times. The respondent No. 3 and 4 are directed to restore and maintain the connection of the petitioner, if they pay regularly the electricity and water dues. The consent of the land-lord in the matter of giving a connection to the tenant is not all necessary. It is the occupier who is getting a connection. The question that there should be the consent of the land-lord is against the norms of the present s...
Tag this Judgment!Hazariya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN518
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Accused Hazariya was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/-in default of the payment of fine on further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur by his judgment dated March 19, 1981. He has come-up in appeal and challenges his conviction.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Poosa Ram Dholi was the husband of Smt. Sohini alias Prem (co-accused acquitted by the trial court). They were residents of village Barawata Tehsil Sambhar district Jaipur. Poosa Ram was one-eyed person and had prominent scar marks of small-pox on his face. He was a man of lean and weak constitution. Accused Hazariya came in contact with this couple. It is suggested that illicit intimacy took place between the appellant and Smt. Sohini. The appellant brought the couple to village Chhapri Badi Tehsil Deedwana district Nagaur and all the three i.e. the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Omkar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN658
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition filed by Omkar and others under Section 397/401 Cr. PC against the judgment dated 20-3-1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, camp at Jaipur in Cr. Revision Petition No. 13/85, whereby he accepted the revision petition of the non-petitioner and reversed the judgment and order dated 11th November, 1982 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sambher in Cr. case No. 81/82 (345/79), by which the learned Munsif had discharged the petitioners for offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 120B, IPC.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that complainant Mangu alias Ramjiwan s/o Dalu Ram Ahir, resident of Haripura filed a criminal complaint in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Sambher-Lake against 7 persons, including the petitioners, alleging that there is a land bearing khasra No. 323 measuring 2 bighas and 15 biswas and khasra No. 325 measuring bighas and 11...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ411; 1986(2)WLN788
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of a common order dated 29-8-86 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and raise a common question of law, so they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Two Sessions Cases committed to the Court of Session, Jodhpur were transferred by the learned Sessions Judge for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. The learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Jodhpur committed the Criminal Case No. 4557 of 1986 Under Section 307, IPC by his order dated 1-8-86, The Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur rejected the bail application, so, the accused persons filed an application for bail Under Section 439, Cr. P.C. to the Court of Session.3. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur committed the Criminal Case No. 268/86 Under Section 302, IPC by his order dated 25-7-86. The two accused-persons moved applications for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur to who...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN206
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is a revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr. PC against the order dated 4-6-1986, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, in Criminal Case No. 15/86, whereby he ordered to frame the charge against the accused petitioner under Section 307 I.P.C.3. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 11-3-1986, a FIR was lodged at Police Station, Malpura, by the injured Ismail, in which he alleged that he was sitting with one Naresh at his video shop in Malpura. He had friendly relations with Naresh. While he was closing the door of video room at about 8.30 p.m. Pradeep accused appellant came and caused a knife blow on his neck. On the basis of this information a case under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered and after investigation the police submitted a challan against the accused petitioner under Section 307 I.P.C. in the court of learned CJM who committed the accused petitioner for trial to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Ajeet Singh Singhvi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN352
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The short question is as to whether in view of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. 1985 (for short, the Act) this writ petition should be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) under Section 29 of the Act as this Court ceased to have jurisdiction ?2. The petitioner, Ajeet Singh Singhvi, though a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service, claims to have acquired a right to be treated as a substantive member of the Indian Administrative Service)(Senior Scale) (for short, IAS) with effect from March 8, 1984 on the ground that he was selected by the selection committee for promotion to the IAS in its meeting held on December 22, 1980, and the Union Public Service Commission conveyed its approval of the select list on April 3, 1981. In pursuance of the select list of 1981 the petitioner was promoted to IAS by an order of the respondent No. 3 dated March 3, 1984, Annx. 2. But no order under Regulation 9 of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »