Rajasthan Court January 1988 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.
Heera Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)441
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.PC is directed against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi, dated 8th October, 1986.2. Brief facts of the case are that tractor No. RJC 2683 was seized by the S.H.O., Police Station Talera in connection with a case registered on First Information Report No. 83/1986 under Sections 420 and 406, IPC. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451, Cr.PC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi for delivering the tractor to him One Harjendra Singh also filed an application for giving the tractor on 'Supurdginama' and the 3rd application was submitted by the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Talera for the same purpose. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed all the three applications by his impugned order dated 8th October, 1986. The petitioner Heera Lal aggrieved against the aforesaid order has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC.3. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Mehr...
Mst. Karma Vs. Harnam Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN489
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 was directed to produce Harnam Singh before this court today. Harnam Singh has not been produced before this court. Similarly no affidavit has been filed about the state of the criminal case which is pending against Harnam Singh. How ever Mr. H.S. Sandhu stated that the date fixed in the criminal case was 26th November, 1987 but no witnesses were examined on that date. The case was adjourned to 7th and 8th January, 1988 but no witnesses were present. It was also admitted that Harnam Singh also did not present himself before the trial court on 7th January, 1938. Harnam Singh, non-petitioner No. 1 was granted bail by this court on 5-3-1987. On 10th March, 1987 Karma, sister of the deceased Sher Mohammed filed a complaint under Section 107, Cr.PC against Harnam Singh in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh alleging that Harnam Singh has been threatening her and other eye witnesses not to give evidence against him. U...
Phakira Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN717
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard. Mr. L.R. Choudhary for the petitioner and Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi, Public Prosecutor in this revision.2. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 379, IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction which was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur.3. The prosecution case is that Koshlaram had lodged a report on October 26, 1978 at Police Station, Bhojasar that on August 24, 1978, the petitioner, along with one another person had taken one cow and two calves from his Dhani in the presence of his son Jagdish and two others named Malaram and Mohanram.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the recovery of the cow and the calves from the possession of the petitioner has not been established by the prosecution. Ramchandra PW 4 and Umaram PW 9 were the motbir witnesses of the alleged recovery. They have not supported the prosecution. Kaniram...
Madhobehari Goel and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN256
Farooq Hasan, J.1. Three appellants in two appeals namely, Madho Behari Goyal (Cr. Appeal No. 226/1977), Brandawan Dass (B.D. Soni) and Gokuldas (Cr. Appeal No. 207/77) were tried for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 477A, 463, 471 and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('Act') read with Section 114, IPC and they were found guilty; and the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his judgment dated June 6, 1977 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:(1) Madho Beheri Goyal (Cr. Appeal No. 226/1977)Under Section 120B, 409 & 477A, IPC Five year's rigorous imprisonment oneach count;Under Section 465, IPC 1 year's rigorous imprisonment;Under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act 5 year's rigorous imprisonment with afine of Rs. 2,000/- in default 3 months'RI.(2) Brandavan Dass (B.D. Soni) (Cr. Appeal No. 207/77)Under Sections 120B, 409, 471, IPC Five year's rigorous imprisonment oneach count.Under Sections 465 & 411 IPC One year'...
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ566Raj
K.S. Lodha, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the award made by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Two contentions have been raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. His first contention is that the claim was barred by a long period of time and sufficient cause for the delay was not shown and therefore, the learned Commissioner should not have entertained the claim. His second contention is that in any case, the interest from the date of accident should not have been awarded on such a belated claim. Having given my careful consideration to these two contentions, I do not find substance in either of them in the circumstances of the case.2. It is not in dispute that the deceased was an employee of the appellant and that his death took place out of employment and on account of employment. The fact of the death of the employee was immediately known to the appellant admittedly. Under Rule 10, he should have reported the matter ...
Teja Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)360
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In a trial for the charge under Section 302 IPC against Teja Singh appellant and under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against appellants Bhajan Singh and Mukhtyar Kaur they were held guilty for the aforesaid offences and by the judgment dated August 25, 1982 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanuman-garh all of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. Feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the appellants have preferred this appeal in this Court.3. Succinctly narrated the prosecution case is that on August 15, 1981 at about 4-4.30 p.m. Hazoora Singh (PW 6), his daughter Amro (PW 7) and Sadho Singh (PW 9) were sitting on cots beneath a tree out side the house of Hazoora Singh. When they heard cries from the house of Billoo Majhabi, all the three lushed towards that house and saw Malkiat Singh son of Hazoorasingh lying on a cot. Mukhtyar Kaur and Bhajan Singh appellants were catching hold of the legs of Malkiat Singh and Teja Si...
Pramod NaraIn Srivastava Vs. the Director, Poddar Institute of Managem ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Raj14; 1989WLN(UC)486
ORDER1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that no interference is called for. The petitioner has now admitted that during the relevant period he was serving at Udaipur in a Government undertaking Obviously, his attendance became short on that account. 2. It is unfortunate that the petitionergave an affidavit to show that it was notcorrect. We would have thought of prosecuting the petitioner, but we feel that the affidavitgiven was out of over-enthusiasm for havingthe educational qualification, and has notharmed anyone because the respondents haveshown that it was incorrect, 3. However, we would like to put a word of caution to the litigants particularly who come under Article 226 of the Constitution for obtaining equitable relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction by way of stay orders. It is well established principle that no tainted hands should be allowed to touch the pure fountains of justice and therefore, such writ petitions can be dismissed only on th...
Jamna Dass Son of Chandan Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)43
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Notice of this appeal has been given to the Public Prosecutor and arguments heard. The only ground urged by Dhankar is that looking to the nature of the allegations that price and stock of some articles like match box and soap was not displayed in the price list and stock list, the case should have been dealt with under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, more so in view of Section 361 Cr.PC.2. In my opinion the case should have been dealt with under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appeal is partly allowed, While maintaining conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, it is hereby directed that if the accused executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with stipulation to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so within a period of one year and in the meanwhile keep peace ...
Leela and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN378
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the judgment of the learned trial court. The learned trial court in its judgment dated December 15, 1987 has convicted accused-appellant Sri Chand under Section 324 IPC and accused-appellants Leela Ram and Jaidayal under Sections 325 and 323 IPC. The learned Court while hearing the arguments on the quantum of sentence has declined to deal with the case of the accused appellants under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') on the only ground that injured Munshi Singh received injuries which were grievous.2. The submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that the only ground that the injuries are grievous, the Court could not have declined to give the benefits of provisions of Section 4 of the Act to the appellants more so when the case was such which could have been dealt with under the provisions of the Act and ...
Mahaveer Prasad Vs. Municipal Council
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)136
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nawa dated 4-2-1987. I have also perused the affidavits filed by Shri Mahaveer Prasad and Shri Hanuman Singh, Advocate.2. The revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Nawa dated 4-2-1987, by which the plaintiff's evidence was closed. A bare perusal of the order would reveal that this order has been passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate on account of unduer haste. The plaintiff was in the witness box on 4-2-1987 and wanted to prove a receipt alleged to have been obtained from the Municipal Board, Nawa in respect of the purchase of the plot in dispute. However, that receipt was not at that time available with the learned Counsel as the same had been handed over to another counsel in connection with another suit. Therefore, the statement of the plaintiff could not be completed and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »