Rajasthan Court May 1986 Judgments
Arjun Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1236; 1986(2)WLN172
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The accused Arjun Singh alias Bhanwar Singh submitted second bail application under Section 439, Cr. P.C. in case State v. Bhanwar Singh and Ors. under Sections 302, 201 and 120B, IPC pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District (CBI), Jaipur.2. The said application came up for consideration before a learned single Judge, Hon'ble M. B. Sharma, J. by his order dated May 15, 1986, requested Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to resolve the conflict in view of the difference of opinion in various decisions of single Benches of this Court. M. B. Sharma, J. formulated the following points of reference:(1) Whether in the total period of 90 days or 60 days as provided in Section 167 Sub-section (2), Proviso (a)(i) and (ii), the date of arrest is to be included or excluded?(2) Whether in a case a challan is filed on the 91st day of the arrest and the cognizance of the offence has been taken against the accused and he is rem...
Tag this Judgment!Surajbhan Singh Vs. Smt. Tej Kanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN405
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. In this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.PC the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 6th November, 1984, has been challenged mainly on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 68 of Cr.PC in holding that the services of the summons of the case, under Section 125 Cr.PC was proper. It is also urged that if the service of the summons under Section 125 Cr.PC is not in accordance with the law, then an application to set aside the ex parte order, if any made under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 126 Cr.PC cannot be dismissed on the ground that the same came to be made after 3 months from the date of the ex parte order.2. The parties are not in dispute that the summons which were issued on the petitioner of the application under Section 125 Cr.PC which was moved by Smt. Tej Kanwar, in the court of the learned Magistrate, w...
Tag this Judgment!Mangi Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)183
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31st October, 1974, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sirohi, setting aside the decree of the Civil Judge, Sirohi, and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.2. Plaintiff was a country liquor contractor at Erinpura Road and entered into a contract for liquor from 1-4-1963 and 31-3-1964 and deposited a sum of Rs. 3027 as security. Since the warehouse at Rani did not stock sufficient quantity of liquor of the type and quality required by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not get the liquor for the contract amount and, therefore, the State forfeited the security amount of Rs. 3027/- and a further demand was made asking the plaintiff to pay Rs. 2521.51. Plaintiff gave a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and thereafter filed the present suit for an injunction against the State not to recover the demand made by it and also to refund the security amount to the plaintiff. The defendent ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Amba Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)133
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This appeal after grant of special leave has come for hearing after a lapse of eight years in a case where the accused non-petitioner was tried for offence under Section 332 IPC and acquitted.2. The prosecution came with a case that on December 12, 1974 when Pukhraj Lukkad, an Overseer, had gone for disconnecting the water connection of Ambalal accused along with the staff members of the office of Public Health Engineering Department, Nathdwara, namely, Sohan Singh Fitter, Bhadwar Singh, Laxmi Lal and Bahadur Singh, Ambalal stated that water connection may not be disconnected on which he was asked to deposit the dues but he denied and hence disconnection was done. At that time, it is stated that Ambalal started abusing Pukhraj and manhandled him. The report of the incident was lodged by himself with police station, Nathdwara on which a cause was registered for offence under Sections 332 and 323 IPC and investigation commenced. Pukhraj was got medically examined...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Nemi Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)156
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is defendent's Second Appeal against the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Pali confirming the decree of Munsif Jetaran and decreeing the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted an application that the Municipality has been established in Jetaran since 29.10.75 and thereafter in view of notification issued by the State of Rajasthan on 18th of May, 1979, the State Government extended Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, to all the Municipal towns in the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, is applicable to Jetaran as well. The disputed property is situated in Jetaran and parties also belong to Jetaran and, therefore, in view of Section 26 of the said Act, a decree for eviction of a tenant, for any premises in areas of which this act extends cannot be executed against him except on any of the ground mentio...
Tag this Judgment!Tafazul HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN598
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated April 7, 1984 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara by which the petitioner was charge sheeted under Section 409 read with Sections 420, 465 and 468 IPC in connection with the famine relief work for nursery in the year 1973. A complaint was filed by Rameshwar Singh Kachroo and Ramnarain before the Depty Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Department, Chittorgarh against Dhruv Narain, the then Block Development Officer (for short 'BDO' hereinafter) alleging that a false document in the form of muster roll was prepared and irregularities were committed in the work. The petitioner was an Overseer concerned with that work. The matter was investigated and sanction for prosecution of Dhruv Narain was sought from the Government but the same was refused on the ground that though irregularities were evident in the construction wo...
Tag this Judgment!N.D. Mantri Vs. Smt. Krishna Bhatnagar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN306
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. The petitioner was retired compulsorily by order dated December 11, 1975 which order was quashed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by its order dated 19-9-1980. The State of Rajasthan preferred a writ petition before this court and the same was dismissed by (his court by order dated 24-8-83. He appeal has been filed against that order and therefore the order of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 386/ 83 dated 24-5-83, has become final and the order dated December 11, 1975 retiring the petitioner compulsorily, stands quashed.2. The petitioner filed the contempt petition which was registered at S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 97/84, on 12-4-84. It was admitted on 27-4-84. Notices were issued and Mr. S.N. Mathur, learned Counsel put in appearance on behalf of the two contemnors on 17-9-85. A reply to the contempt petition was filed on 23-5-85 by Shri V.M. Bahadur non-petitioner No. 2, stating that payment of Rs. 90,800.07 on a...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji and Dayaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN594
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 18-3-1983 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas convicting the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Accused appellant Dayaram has also been convicted under Section 3/25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to 3 months RI and 6 months R.I. respectively.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an oral report (Ex. D 1) was lodged by PW 1 Nathu at P.S. Tijara. On the basis of this report, an FIR was chalked out at the police station. In the report, it has been alleged that on 6-4-1981 at about 5-30 to 6 p.m the accused-appellants armed with a gun and katta came to his house and after abuses Chiranji alias Chimta appellant called deceased Shera (son of the informant) to come out of the house. At this Shera came out and at that time the accused appellant Chiranji alias Chimta fired his gun which hit Shera on his chest. The...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)320
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh on July 31, 1978, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:Accused-appellant Amar Singh for offences under Section 324, 323 and IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 323 IPC and to a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 341 IPC.Accused-appellant Chhatar Singh for offences under Sections 325 & 341 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four months for offence under Section 325 and to a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 341 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.The accused-appellant Bahadur Singh for offence under Section 325 and 341 IPC are the accused appellant Vishnusingh for offence under Section 323 and 341 IPC. Both these appe...
Tag this Judgment!Balak Das Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)634
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Though the prosecution will have a right to challenge the step taken by the accused that he has not attained the age 16 years but prima facie from the certificate of Head Master, Government Middle School, Rajgarh, it appears that the date of birth of the accused petitioner is recorded as 10th June, 1970 and as such on the date of the occurrence he had not attained the age 16 years. The accused is under the age of 16 years and can be considered for being releasing on bail under the proviso of Sub-section (i) of Section 437 Cr. PC. That apart, if an accused person had not attained the age of 16 years on the date of the occurrence then he is a 'child' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Rajasthan Children Act and on that account also he is entitled to be released on bail.2. Consequently, on the ground of his prima facie not having attained the age of 16 years on the date of the occurrence I allow the application and direct that the accused petitioner Ba...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »