Rajasthan Court May 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.
Babu Maulana and 6 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN175
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 31st July, 1985, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur, City, Jaipur, whereby, he convicted all the accused-appellants of offence under Section 302/142, IPC and sentenced each of them, to imprisonment for life. He also convicted appellants Lallu, Faiyaz, Ayyub and Bundu for offence under Section 148, IPC and sentenced each of them to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellants Siraj, Kayyum and Babu Maulana were further convicted and sentenced under Section 147, IPC, to 2 years's rigorous imprisonment.2. According to the prosecution, one Manzoor Ahmed lodged an oral report on 8th Nov., 83, at about 8.30 p.m. at Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur, alleging that he had his meat-shop outside the 'Chandpole-Gate', under the Mosque of Butchers, which was known as 'Razia Sultana Meat-House'. In front of his shop, there was a shop of fishes and eggs, belonging to Nazruddin, son of Allahbux. On th...
Kishan Lal Yadav Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj153; 1986(2)WLN197
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The petitioner applied for electric connection on priority basis on the ground that he was a small/marginal farmer. The petitioner filed a certificate issued by a Patwari, Block Development Officer and Tehsildar. Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, certifying that he was a small/marginal fanner as he was in possession of 4 Bighas 6 Biswas of land. The Assistant Engineer (REC) R.S.E.B., Chomu (Jaipur) rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he had purchased land Khasra No. 1055 measuring 8 Bighas 11 Biswas in the joint name of petitioner and his brother Kalu Ram. The Assistant Engineer took the view that the land in the joint Khata of petitioner and his brother Kalu Ram was more than 8 Bighasand as such the petitioner does not fall under the purview of small/marginal farmer. The petitioner aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Engineer has filed this writ petition.2. The only point to be considered in this case is whether the ent...
Bhagwan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN546
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated 4-9-1982.2. The incident took place at village Katarthal on 30th November, 1980, a report about which was lodged at Police Police Station Raghunathgarh, by lobar Singh, Kishore Singh and five others were first challaned and the trial against them was conducted in Sessions Case No. 27/1981. The other persons were subsequently challaned and they are Vijendra Singh Ridmal Singh and Bhagwan Singh. The trial against them is in Sessions Case No. 51/1981. However, as the cases arose out of the same incident, they have been decided by one judgment, the two sets of accused have preferred separate appeals before this Court. They have been convicted as under : Accused Kishore Singh, Surjeet Singh, Rohtash Chandra Singh, Richpal Singh, Sher Singh, Ridmal Singh, Vijendra Singh and Bhagwan Singh have been convicted under Section 148, IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, ...
Ganga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)157
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Merta, dated July 20, 1978 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 376 and 354 IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment on the first count and six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were made to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case started on a First Information Report lodged with Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagore by Ganesh Ram on August 19, 1976 wherein it was alleged by him that on the previous evening after sun set when it was dark Gangaram son of Shiv Narain Jat came to his Dhani and told him that he wants Rs. 1600/- as expenses on which he stated that he has no money. He thereafter threatened him with beating on which he got ri...
Kakka Singh S/O Lakhasingh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)136
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, for the State.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not assailed the conviction of the accused petitioners under Sections 324, 147/148, 452 and 325 IPC. His only submission is that occurrence took place on 31st October, 1972, at about 3.00 p.m. The trial was protracted and concluded on 11th September, 1980 and taking into consideration this fact and the fact that the offence for which the accused persons were convicted is such which could have been dealt with under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the learned courts below instead of sentencing the accused petitioners should have extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.3. It appears that the learned trial court extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, to Arjun Singh and Jangir Singh each aged about 17 to 18 years on the date of judgment and aged about 10 to 12 years on the dat...
Sankal Chand Vs. Vardhi Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)163
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed by defendant No. 2 Sankalchand against the judgment and decree dated March 8, 1975, of the Additional District Judje, Sirohi, in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1974, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 14091/- against the defendants including the appellant here in.2. The plaintiff was carrying on the business at Sheoganj in the name of Vardhichand Ratanji. Appellant Sankalchand and his son Devichand were partners of the firm Chenaji Chandulal, but the said firm was dissolved on October 22, 1968. No public notice of the dissolution was, however, given as required by Section 45 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, hereinafter referred to as the Act. A sum of Rs. 14,500/- was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant firm on November 29, 1972. A further sum of Rs. 2500/-was by the plaintiff to the defendant firm on January 6, 1973. Out of the total amount of Rs. 17,000/- so advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant firm, a sum of Rs. 5000/- was r...
Bega Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)315
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated February 21, 1976 convicting and sentencing the appellant as under: S. No. Name of accused Offence Under Section Sentence imposed (1) Bega Ram 302, IPC Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, six months rigorous imprisonment; 323, IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment; (2) Kashi Ram 302, IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment; 325, IPC Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, which is short and simple, is that Surja Ram (deceased), Chunni Ram and Begaram (appellant) were real brothers and resided in village Sherahan P.S. Tibi district Sri Ganganagar. PW 1 Manphool is the son of Chunni Ram and PW 2 Rameshwar is the son of Surja Ram. The appellant Kashi Ram is the son of ac...
Atar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN707
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated March, 27, 1986 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur passed in criminal revision. In the aforesaid order, the learned Addition?! District Judge, Bharatpur dismissed the revision petition preferred before him against the order of the Additional Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur dated January 21st, 1986 under which he had taken cognizance for offence under Section 302/34 IPC against the accused petitioner.2. The main ground on which the order taking cognizanee of offence has been challenged is that it is contravention of Section 210 Criminal Procedure Code. To appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to state the facts which are no longer in dispute.3. In the night intervening 24th-25th of June, 1985 in the house of Biri Singh, his wife Budhdevi was murdered. A report was lodged by Biri Singh in the police station in which he is said to have admitted his guilt....
Roop Chand Maheshwari and 5 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN577
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. An identical question is involved in all the six writ petitions listed above and therefore all of them are being disposed of by this common order. A copy of the order be placed on each file.2. For disposal of the writ petitions the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 602/1986 (Roop Chand Maheshwari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) shall alone be stated.3. The petitioner Roop Chand Meheshwari is a proprietor of M/s Rajasthan Publicity Centre and is engaged in the business of advertisement for the last five years. As appears from Schedule 'A' annexed to the writ petition the petitioner has put 20 hoardings on Municipal land and 5 hoardings on private land. The petitioner obtained licences under the Municipal Council Jaipur Advertising Bye-laws, 1974 (for short, the bye-laws) framed under Section 90(3) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short the Act). The licensing authority under its order dated March 13, 1986 took a decision not to r...
Mukan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)676
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. Taking into consideration the fact that the mother of the accused-petitioner is aged about 86 years and is ill. We consider it proper to direct that the accused-petitioner Mukansingh may be released on bail for a period of three months on his furnishing a personal bound in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra.2. The accused-petitioner is directed to surrender before the Central Jail, on the expiry of the period of three months....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »