Rajasthan Court January 1987 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.
Mohan Lal Alias Hanuman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN657
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Stricken poverty must have led this young lad of 20 years Mohan Lal alias Hanuman Singh petitioner to earn his livelihood by committing patty thefts and breaking locks of some residential houses and commercial premises. The booty collected by the petitioner is not much. He fairly and frankly confessed his guilt in all the cases probably under the belief that Lok Adalat would give him some clemency for getting that the Lok Adalats are not meant for thefts and persons committing lurking home trespass. By that as all it may, in ten criminal cases launched by the police against him, he was convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine on three dates in the months of October, 1986, i.e. 14th, 15th and 18th October, N 86 by the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The sentences awarded in these criminal cases are under law to run consecutively. Thus for all these conviction this young lad of 20 years will have to remain in jail 17 yea...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Gramothan Vidyapeeth Siksha Mahavidyalaya and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN339
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. By the writ petition, the petitioner Rakesh Kumar, who was a member of the respondent Gramothan Vidyapeeth Shiksha Mahavidyalya, has challenged the orders Annx. 7, 8 & 9, by which penalties have been inflicted upon him. It may be mentioned that on 5-8-1984 a charge-sheet, Annx. 3 was served upon the petitioner, in which inter alia it was alleged that the petitioner had charged an illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/-, and Rs. 2000/-respectively from Shri Ujjagar Singh and Nachhater Singh at the time of their admission to the B Ed. classes in July 1983, while the petitioner was officiating as the Principal of the College. The petitioner filed his reply to this charge-sheet on 13-8-1984, a copy of which has been filed as Annx. 4. He denied the charges and attributed malafide to the authority, namely, the Administrator of the respondent Gramothan Vidyapeeth. Thereafter, on 8 4-1985, again a communication was sent to the petitioner, charging him with absence from d...
Jamna Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN19
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. This bail application is filed by Jamnalal Under Section 439, Cr. PC who is facing (rial along with Roshan lal and Bhanwar Lal and Kundan Lal in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 read with Section 49 IPC.2. According to the prosecution Ganesh Lal Nagda lodged a written report at Police Station Pratap Nagar on 14-9-1983 alleging that on 13-9-1983 at about 11 p.m. in the night when he along with his family members was talking accused persons Bhanwar Lal, Roshan Lal Kundan Lal, Jamna Lal and Raju armed with deadly weapons came there and shouted that entire family be killed. It is alleged that Roshan Lal inflicted sword blow in the stomach of Bhagwati Lal. When Hukmi Chand, Fateh Lal, Chaturbhuj and Nirmala came to rescue Bhagwati Lal, were also injured by the accused persons. Bhagwati Lal died on account of the injuries. After completing the investigation the challan was filed against four accused pe...
Mahavir Prasad Vs. Panchayat Sri Digamber JaIn Mandir
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN22
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2-8-1686 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur directing the appellant to deposit rent month by month by 15th day of the next month. The defendant appellant is aggrieved by this order as according to him he is depositing the rent of the premises in which he is a tenant Under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, as there is a bonafide dispute as to who is the landlord, and who is entitled to receive the rent.2. The appellant was taken in as a tenant in the disputed property premises) in the year 1972. In the year 1980, he started depositing the rent in Court under Section 19A of the Act as there was a dispute as to whether the respondent was the landlord or one Chiranji Lal Patni was the landlord. At the same time Income Tax Department was also claiming the rent on account of the tax dues of Chiranji Lal Patni. In the proceeding under Section 19A of the...
Amar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)211
Ashok Kamar Mathur, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order of the Managing Officer dated 5-12-1973 as confirmed by the Central Government vide order dated 6-10-1978 (Ex. 4) may be quashed. Petitioner was allotted 37 bighas of agricultural land in 1950 bearing khasra No 42/2418/11, 44/11/4, 63/211 in Chak No. 39 P.S., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Shri Ganganagar, as a non-claimant displaced person. This allotment was cancelled on 25-5-1964 for not paying instalment towards its price according to the terms and conditions. The land was allotted to one Shri Thakumal, Non-petitioner No. 3 by the Managing Officer. The above mentioned land was sold to petitioner for Rs. 7339.86 and he deposited Rs. 1045/- in the year 1960 and Rs. 800/- in 1961. But rest of the amount could not be deposited by him because of his family, circumstances. An application was made on 5-6-1968 explaining his difficulties and prayed for condoning the defaults. He again applied for the permis...
Purshottam Vs. Manju Kumari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC348
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These two appeals are connected as they are against the order dated 8th August, 1984 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Kota in MACT Case No. 8 of 1983.2. The facts in the present two appeals, which are to be decided by one common judgment are not in dispute, so far as claim petition filing and its adjudication by the Tribunal is concerned. In short the claim petition was filed against Purshottam by Smt. Manju Kumari widow of Gajendra Singh, who died on account of accident and Baby daughter of Gajendra Singh. The accident happened on 2-8-1982 at about 2.00 P.M. when Gajendra Singh was going on motor cycle towards Gumanpura. The matador bearing RSO 4059 driven by Pursottam was coming from opposite side and caused accident resulted in death of Gajendra Singh. The claim petition was for Rs. 42,00,000/- but the claim allowed is Rs. 65,000 to the wife Smt. Manju and daughter Baby and so far as in the other claim petition filed by Govind Singh and Chandresh Kumari...
Deen Mohhemad Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ884; 1987(1)WLN376
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner was found guilty of the offence Under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 by the Judicial Magistrate (Roadways), Hanumangarh by his order dt. 28-7-78. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to undergo seven days simple imprisonment. On appeal the conviction and sentence of the petitioner were maintained by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganganagar by his order dt. 24th July, 1979.2. learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no accusation against the petitioner that he had accepted the fare from the six passengers which is an essential ingredient of the offence Under Section 8 of the Act, 1975. In the absence of this ingredient no offence Under Section 8 is made out, and no conviction can be recorded on the basis of the alleged confession by the petitioner.3. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitio...
Ramzan Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)481
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated llth September, 1979, whereby, he allowed the revision filed by the State and set-aside the order dated 29 9-1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal discharging the petitioner for the offence Under Section 420 IPC.2. The gravemen of the charge against the petitioner is, that he submitted an application for renewal of licence of his D88L gun No. 105293 to the S.D.M. Bhinmal and got it renewed on 24-11-1972 & further got the renewal of the licence from S.D.M. Jaitaran on 14-12-1975 knowing it fully well that his licence had already been suspended by S.D.M Beawar by order No. 42 dated 15/16 4-1969 and after getting the licence renewed obtained his D.B.B.L. gun from the court of S O M Bhinmal. His gun and the licence were recovered in connection with the investigation of an opium case, in which, he was convicted and his licence was suspended on account of illegal possession of 25...
Vijai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN92
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this case is that the petitioner who was a Chowkidar in the employ of non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 had wrongly been retrenched without following the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is admitted by him that so far as the completion of 240 days in a Calendar Year goes he had worked under two different units, one under the Assistant Engineer, Parbatsar and the second under the Assistant Engineer, Deedwana and the period of employment under the two units if taken together would amount to more than 240 days in the calendar year. The case of the non-petitioners, on the other hand, is that the period of work of the petitioner under two different units cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of completion of statuary period of 240 days because under Section 25F the benefit of one y...
Poonam Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN393
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence under Section 19 read with Section 54(a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.3. The petitioner has undergone sentence of 19 days. More than 7 years have already passed. In view thereof it would be proper to reduce the sentence to the sentence already undergone.4. Accordingly this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained and his sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. His sentence of fine is remitted....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »