Rajasthan Court March 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.
Sachchida Nand and anr. Vs. Pooran Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ511; 1987(2)WLN479
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. An important question of law has been raised in these misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that is where in a summons case if the court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused under Section 205 or 317, Cr. P.C., whether it is must that the accused should be personally examined to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him? -2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners in these two misc. petitions is that in view of introduction of the proviso to Sub-section (i) of Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (New Code) the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal : 1969CriLJ654 , does not hold the field, and if the accused applies even at the stage of his examination under Section 313 of the New Code, to dispense with his examination under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the New Code, then the court has no option but to...
Ramjeewan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN316
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated February 20, 1985 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur convicted the three appellants Ramjeewan, Shiv Karan and Mangi Lal under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/ in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. By the same judgment, he also convicted them under Section 447, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to one month's simple imprisonment. The accused have come up in appeal and challenge their conviction.2. PW 4 Kumari Indra is the daughter, PW 5 Smt. Baluri is the widow and PW 8 Hemaram is the son of the deceased-victim Kesa Ram Jat, aged about 42 years at the time of his murder. They are residents of village Paldi Vyasan, at the relevant time (January, 1984) they were living in a Dhani, which they had raised in their field as shown in site plan Ex. P 20. The deceased had's own Grams and Raida crops in his field. The appellants ...
Mahendra Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN583
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition under Section 401 Cr. P.C. read with Section 482 Cr. P.C.2. This revision petition is directed against an order of the Magistrate dated 7-51980 in which he directed that the SHO who has sent the complaint without investigation should be prosecuted for offence under Sections 188, 217, I.P.C. and 29 of the Police Act.3. This is one of those cafes where clearly the process of the court has been abused by the Munsif Magistrate in hot haste and immature understanding of the law and facts. It is typical type of rashness exhibited by the Munsif Magistrate.4 The facts may be noticed in brief. A criminal case was filed by one Hurmat Umar under Section 379, I.P.C. The complainant was Chirmoli and the accused Hurmat Umar and Ors. The offence alleged was under 379, I.P.C. regarding taking away of some crop. This complaint dated 12-4-1979 was registered by the Magistrate and sent in criminal to the SHO for investigation under Section 156(3)...
Heera Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN472
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397 & 401, Cr. P.C. against the judgment and conviction dated 24-11-1981 passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1980, maintaining the conviction of accused under Sections 420 & 468 I.P.C. but acquitting the accused under Section 419 I.P.C. and also maintaining the sentence under Section 420 and 468, I.P.C. for one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 400/- and upheld the judgment and conviction dated 20-9-1980 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad in Cr. Case No. 515/1977.2. The complaint filed by Shri P.C. Jain, Deputy Superintendent Post Office, Ajmer on 2-7-1977 before the Judicial Magistrate disclosed that one Ram Swaroop had a Khata No. 205254 in the saving bank account in the post office of Nasirabad. He died and after that his wife Smt. Sushila Devi moved an application withdrawal of Rs. 3142.50 from the Post Office. It was found that on 26-4-1974 Rs. 2,000/- and on 3-5-1974 Rs. 1,000/...
Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. Raman Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)264
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision, arising out of an order of temporary injunction granted in a suit by the respondent Raman Lal challenging his reversion to the post of Canteen Supervisor from the post of Canteen Manager.2. According to the respondent, this reversion results in alteration of his status from that of an officer to a subordinate, which illegal. On this basis, the respondent claimed a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner-employer, from implementing the order of reversion. Such a temporary injunction has been granted in the respondent's favour and the appellate order dated 5-5-1982 also imposes two conditions to be observed by the respondent, namely(1)that the respondent will produce the entire evidence in the suit within six months of the framing of the issues; and(2)in the absence of the Canteen supervisor the respondent will also discharge the duties of the Canteen Supervisor.3. At the very outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, made an...
Ali Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)238
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the appellate order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Jodhpur whereby he has maintained the conviction and sentence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act of the accused-petitioner Ali Mohd. recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer vide his Judgment dated 5-2-1979. The accused-petitioner has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 300/-and in default, to undergo two month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are: that accused Ali Mohd. was caught by PW 5 Jet Singh, PW 2 Bhanwar Singh and PW 3 Lal Singh while he was crossing the Indian Boarder towards Pakistan. They were serving on B.O.P. Post 16 BSF, Dharmi. On 14-2-1977 in the morning at about 8 a.m., they went on gust duly between Pillers No. 563/1 and 563/2 and, there, they saw the fresh foot prints of two camels going towa...
Mohd. Zakir Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)290
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order Annexure 10 by which he was dismissed from service from the post of Store Munshi. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given proper opportunity to face the allegation of embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 6, 530/-. The legality of the order Annexure 10 has been challenged on a number of grounds. Mr. Udawat submits that the petitioner did not participate in the inquiries. He does not dispute that the order Annx. 10 does not contain the details of the material which might have been taken into consideration by the Chief Engineer passing that order. The order Aunexure 10 cannot be said to be a speaking order. What has been mentioned therein is that the authority passing the order has taken into consideration the charge-sheet, the statement of allegation and the explanation of the concerned employees. Who were those conce...
Ram Karan and 2 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)415
1. These three appeals: one filed by accused Ramkaran the other filed by accused Jawana, Mangla, Padma and Sobha Ram and the third filed by accused Jagannath through jail are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta dated 26-2-1976 whereby the learned lower court has acquitted Imarta of all the charges framed against him whereas the accused-appellants have been held guilty of the offence under Section 302/149 and 148 IPC. However, the accused-appellants have been acquitted of all the rest of the charges framed against them. For the offence under Section 302/149, the accused appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 100/ each and in default to undergo, 6 months rigorous imprisonment each. They have, however, been sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the di...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Shrimal Studio
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: [1987]66STC231(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This was originally a reference to this Court, by the Board of Revenue, for deciding a question of law said to arise out of the Board's order dated 18th November, 1982, which is now to be heard and disposed of as a revision according to the newly substituted 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1984.2. A penalty of Rs. 2,100 was imposed under 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, by an order dated 4th August, 1975, passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Udaipur. The Deputy Commissioner, on appeal, set aside the order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, which gave rise to a revision before the Board of Revenue. A Single Bench of the Board set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the case to the assessing authority, for making a speaking order indicating the manner in which the penalty amount of Rs. 2,100 had been computed. Against this order of the Single Bench of the Board, a special appeal was...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Jeewan Ram Ram Dayal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC144(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1984, against the judgment dated 28th September, 1982, of a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, dismissing the special appeal against the judgment dated 22nd September, 1978, of a Single Bench in a revision against the order dated 28th April, 1971 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Udaipur. The material facts are stated hereafter.2. The assessee claimed deduction of certain sales from a taxable turnover, made to registered dealers, against S. T. 17 forms. The assessing authority disallowed the deduction claimed in < respect of sale transactions amounting to Rs. 72,424.51 relating to last point goods, sold to registered dealers, against S. T. 17 forms on the basis of a notification dated 23rd March, 1963. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed. It was held that the assessee had establishe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »