Rajasthan Court February 1986 Judgments
Mohar Singh and NaraIn Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN107
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants, namely, Mohar Singh and Narain Singh, were convicted and sentenced as under:Narainsingh & under Section 304, Part II, IPC, 5 year's R.I.Moharsingh under 323, IPC 3 month's R.I.2. A short point has been argued by Sri B.K. Pathak, the learned Counsel for the appellants, but with great nicety that the offence cannot travel beyond Section 325, IPC on the assumption that the finding of the trial court regarding appellants joining at the house of Kishansingh and coming out together with lathi and heading the deceased, are correct.3. Developing his submission, Shri Pathak pointed out that fatal injury has been caused by Kishansingh who is not appellant in this appeal and has already been convicted by separate trial earlier. These appellants of this appeal are said to be authors of the injuries which are simple in nature.4. An important feature of this case is that the present two appe...
Tag this Judgment!Dana Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN385
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated March 14,1975 convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Name of accused Offence Sentence awarded Under Section--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Dana Ram 302, IPC Imprisonment for, life and afine of Rs. 50/-447, IPC Simple Imprisonment for sixmonths; (2) Deva Ram 302/34, IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-;323, IPC Three months simple impri-sonment;447, IPC Six months simple imprisonment;(3) Rewat Ram 302/34, IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-;323, IPC Three months simple imprisonment;447, IPC Six months simpleimprisonment.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is short and simple. On July 2...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Taki Alias Mammu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj52; 1986(1)WLN310
Dave, J. 1. We are called upon to answer a question referred to us by the Division Bench of this Court by its order dt. Dec. 5, 1985, as to whether an approver can be detained for indefinite period even when principal accused in the case has been released on bail. 2. Petitioner had filed an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. before the Single Bench of this Court and on Aug. 28, 1985, interim bail was granted to him under Section 482, Cr.P.C., since the petitioner's only brother had expired and there was none in the family to perform the rituals. The Court while granting bail under Section 482, Cr.P.C. said in the order that application under Section 439, Cr.P.C., does not lie in a case where provisions of Section 306(4)(b), Cr.P.C. are attracted. However, jurisdiction could be invoked under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Accused was directed to surrender on Oct. 28, 1985. On this day the application was pressed on merits and Hon'ble Mehta J. in his order dt. Oct. 28, 1985, while again granti...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN403
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by the appellant, Jairam, against the judgment by which he has been convicted and sentenced to two year's R.I. for the offence under Section 304(2) IPC.2. The only point pressed by Shri V.L. Mathur at the end of his arguments is that the appellant is of 72 years of age. Since he has undergone some part of the term of his sentence of imprisonment imposed by trial court, the ends of justice would be met if he is released on the sentence already undergone.3. Shri S.B. Mathur has opposed the appeal.4. It was argued that in case this Court is inclined to release the accused on the sentence already undergone, then substantial amount of fine should be imposed to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased including the widow.5. Mr. V.L. Mathur submits that his client will not be able to pay fine of more than Rs. 5,000/- as he is an agriculturist.6. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is ordered that the appellant would pay the fine of...
Tag this Judgment!Kishorilal and ors. Vs. Mst. Santosh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ140; 1986(2)WLN519
ORDERKanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In this petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dt. Jan. 24, 1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bikaner by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against two of them viz. Narsinghlal and Smt. Nirmala Under Section 494 I.P.C. and against the remaining petitioner Under Section 494 read with 114 I.P.C.2. The legality of the order has been challenged on the ground that the Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners on a second complaint while the first complaint was alive. Another ground of attack is that out of the thirteen petitioners except Narsinghlal and Devkishan Devilal all had been discharged by the Court in which the first complaint was filed and that order had become final by the order of the revisional Court and as such the cognizance on the second complaint is illegal.3. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties it...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Chand JaIn Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN631
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Some facts are not in dispute any longer and they are these. The petitioner Paras Chand Jain passed his Intermediate examination in the year 1979 from Madhya Pradesh (Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh Bhopal) vide Annexure 1. He was admitted in IInd year course of TDC Commerce and appeared in IInd year examination 1980 in the University of Rajasthan. A candidate who had passed his Intermediate Examination was eligible for admission to IInd year TDC course. As per the Rajasthan University rules then in force, the petitioner was also to pass a paper of General English in IInd year TDC. He could not get the requisite passing marks in that paper as well as ABST I & II and therefore he was declared eligible for supplementary examination in those papers in 1981. He appeared in final year of TDC Examination along with back-log papers of IInd year namely, General English and ABST I & II. He cleared the papers of final year commerce examinations but was a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Prem Kanwar and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj146; 1986(1)WLN730
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1939'), against the Award dt. 27th Sept., 1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants.2. On 25-4-1979 at about 9.15AM, deceased Sanwat Singh was going on a cycle from the side of Nasirabad town towards the Bus Stand, Nesirabad. He was on the left side of the road. When the deceased was near the speed breaker near the Bus Stand towards Nasirabad Town, Bus No. R.R.M. 1460 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'RSRTC') overtook another bus of RSRTC which was passing the speed breaker. Both the buses were coming out of the bus stand and going towards Nasirabad Town. Madan Singh, the driver of the bus No. R.R.M. 1460, could not control the bus on account of careless, rash and negligent driving and hit the deceased Sanwat Singh who died on the spot. The decea...
Tag this Judgment!Barmer Disposal Auto-parts Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(Raj)61; [1987]163ITR690(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for being answered by this court, vide its order dated January 30, 1978 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in respect of the interest charged under Section 139 and under Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an appeal did not lie to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 246 of the said Act and, therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction in entertaining the assessee's appeal on these points ?' 2. The aforesaid reference has arisen in the following circumstances. 3. For the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee was assessed by the Income-tax Officer, vide assessment order dated March 12, 1975. The Income-tax Officer ordered charging of interest as per rules regarding late filing of the return and for making late payment of advance tax. The assessee went in ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Sharma and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1339; 1986(1)WLN458
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. These petitions arc directed against the notices I Annex. 2) issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaur under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (Act No. 14of 1975) (for short 'the Act'). By those notices, the petitioners have been called upon to tender an explanation in respect, of the allegations made against them. The notices have been challenged on the ground that the notices do not specify the pre-requisite conditions contemplated for proceeding to take action under Section 3 of the said Act. For initiating the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act. it should appear to the District Magistrate that the conditions mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) exist. If any one of the conditions is missing then no action can be taken under Section 3 of the Act.2. For proper appreciation of the controversy, the provision of Section 3 of the Act is reproduced hereunder : -3. Externment etc. of Goondas : (1) Where it appears to the District Magistrate:(...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Narbada Vs. Smt. Aashi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj162; 1986WLN(UC)635
ORDERDwarka Prasad, Ag. C.J. 1. The question in this revision petition relates to the interpretation of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 with which I am concerned in the present revision petition reads as under : --'38. Suits for cancellation of decrees etc.- (1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be(a) if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed, and (b) if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or val...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »