Rajasthan Court April 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.
Kesra and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Vice Versa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN297
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Since both the appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanuman Garh they were heard together and are disposed of by a single judgment. By the impugned judgment, accused Kesra and Manaram were convicted under Section 304 Part-II, I.P.C. and each was sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo two months' like imprisonment. By the same judgment, they were acquitted of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. The accused have come-up in appeal and challenge their conviction. The State has taken the appeal against the acquittal.2. PW 4 Motaram Jat of village Lalgarh district Ganganagar appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh on February 16, 1974 and presented written report Ex. P 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police directed the Station House Officer, P.S. Suratgarh to treat Ex. 5 as the First Information Report...
Jamal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)241
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By this judgment dated September 8, 1977 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara convicted the accused Jamal under Section 365, IPC and the accused Soraj and Ladu under Section 365/109 IPC and sentenced each of them to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' like imprisonment. By the same judgment, accused Jamal was further convicted under Section 384, IPC and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' like imprisonment. His sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused have come-up in appeal and challenged their conviction.2. Put briefly, the prosecution case is that PW 2 Smt. Roopa, a young married woman in her early twenties, was living with her parents in village Pander, district Bhilwara. The appellants are also residents of the same village. Smt. Roopa had ...
Bhawani and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)515
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. The appellans have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14-6-1978, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, by which the Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of the offence and sentenced them as under:2. Appellants Bhawani Shankar and Radha Kishan were convicted under Sections 302 and 307, IPC and sentenced each appellant to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo. 1 month's R.I. for the offence under Section 307, IPC. The accused-appellants Mahaveer Prasad and Bala Sahai were convicted under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentenced each appellant to life imprisonment. They were also found guilty of the offence under Sections 307/34, IPC and sentenced each to 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's R.I.3. According to the prosecution story Jagdish Pr...
Pradeep Chaudhary Vs. the S.T.A.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj55
Miss Bhatnagar, J.1. In these two Writ petitions petitioner Pradeen Chaudhary has challenged the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the S.T.A.T.' hereinafter) dated August 13, 1986, granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of Ramesh Chand Samdani and the order dated September 4, 1986, granting one non-temporary stage carriage perm it in favour of Govind Ram. As the points involved in the two writ petitions arising out of the aforesaid two orders are exactly the same, we propose to dispose them of by one common order.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the two writ petitions are as under : --In Udaipur region on an old existing route Bilwara Shahpura via Sanganer, Bada Mahuwa. Dhikola etc. etc. there was a scope of three stage carriages to perform three return services on the route. Under that scope one non-temporary stage carriage permit each in favour of Lal Chand, Gyan Chand an...
Pradeep Chaudhary Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN716
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In these two writ petitions petitioner Pradeep Chaudhary has challenged the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the STAT 'here in after) dated August 13, 1986, granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of Ramesh Chand Samdani and the order dated September 4, 1986, granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of Govind Ram. As the points involved in the two writ petitions arising out of the aforesaid two orders are exactly the same, we propose to dispose them of by one common order.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the two petitions are as under: In Udaipur region on an old existing route Bhilwara-Shahpura via Sanganer, Bada Mahuwa, Dhikola etc. etc. there was a scope of three stage carriage to perform three return services on the route. Under that scope one non-temporary stage temporary carriage permit each in favour of Lal Chand, Gyan Chand an...
Makhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN100
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sriganganagar dated 31-3-1986 whereby the learned Magistrate registered the case against the petitioner under Section 600, IPC.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that one Smt. Manju Pande, Advocate of Sri Ganganagar filed a complaint against the petitioner as also one Shri Hardevsingh Sandhu, Advocate of Jodhpur under Sections 200, 209, 211 and 500 IPC pleading inter alia, that the petitioner Makhansingh and Shri Hardevsingh Sandhu filed a transfer application for transfer of a sessions case from the court of the then Sessions Judge, K.S. Verma, It has been alleged by Smt. Pande that her husband is a Senior Lecturer in English and her father is the Superintendent Engineer (Irrigation) at Sri Ganganagar. She has been standing counsel of the Government Press and the Municipal Board, Sri Ganganagar. She is a member of the Central...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›