Rajasthan Court December 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.
Falgun and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)23
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the appellate order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1982, decided on 18 8-1986 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused-petitioners Kamlesh, Sitaram, Akhlesh and Banshidhar of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 325/149 IPC and the accused-petitioner Falgun of the offences under Sections 148, 447, 147, IPC. How ever, he has convicted the accused-petitioners Kamleh, Sitaram, Akhlesh and Banshidhar of the offence under Section 323, IPC and the accused-petitioner Falgun of the offence under Section 325, IPC and has ordered to release them on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation-of Offenders Act provided each of them furnishes a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 2500/-that they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. He has further ordered that each of the accused-petitioners shall pay Rs. 100/- as compensation to the injured-per...
Prabhu Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)1
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. This Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the revisional order of the learned session judge, churu dated 9-4-1987 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioners against whom cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu for the offences under Sections 376/34 and 457, IPC.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that Mst. Sita wife of Ram Chandra was sleeping in her house on the night intervening between 13th and 14th June 1984 her husband was busy with ploughing the fields of others with the help of a tractor in some other villages. It is alleged that accused-petitioners prabhu Ram, Rawant Ram and Kheta Ram first enjoyed themselves with the bottle of wine in the house of one Poorna Ram and there after they scaled the thorn fencing of complainant's house and committed rape with mst. Sita immediately raised hue and ...
Dwarka Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)21
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the revisional order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 30-5-1988 whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh dt. 6-6-85 taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner Dwarika Prasad for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B, IPC.2 The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that accused-persons Mahendra and Gopal are the owners of M/s. Ganpati Dal Mills, Jaipur and they were also doing same business in Delhi. It is alleged that they approached accused-petitioner Dwarka Prasad, a businessman of Rawatsar for purchase of 3-4 trucks of Gram. On this, Dwaika Prasad gave them a letter in the name of M/s. Sharda Trading Company Hanumangarh that these persons are known to him, they are correct persons and their business behaviour is good and, therefore, they may help th...
Bhainron Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)27
1. The petitioner has challenged the order Annex. 5 of the SDO Sambher lake. Under the aforesaid order dated 20-1-1987, the property of the petitioner which was mortgaged, has only been attached.2. It may be stated that the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (R and D) Act, 1974, (for short the Act) was made as a special Act enabling the recovery by the financial institutions. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act removes the bar to attachment and sale by process of court and that section as appears was made because otherwise it would not have been possible to attach and sale agricultural lands. As and when loan is advanced by a financial institution, the property is mortgaged with the bank. If an application for recovery of an amount is made to the Authorized Officer under the provisions of the Act and if he makes an order of attachment, it cannot be said that he had no such power. There is no provision that the attachment order could not be made without first determining the liability,...
Bhainron Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)86
1. The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure 5 of the S.D.O. Sambherlake. Under the aforesaid order dated 20-1-1987, the property of the petitioner which was mortgaged, has only been attached.2. It may be stated that Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (R of D) Act, 1974, (for short the Act) was made as a special act enabling the recovery by the financial institution. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act removes the bar to attachment and sale by process of court and that Section as appears was made because otherwise it would have been possible to attach and sale agricultural lands. As and when loan is advanced by a financial institution, the property is mortgaged with the bank. If an application for recovery of an amount is made to the authorised officer under the provisions of the Act and if the makes an order of attachment, it cannot be said that he had no such power. There is no provision that the attachment order could not be made without first determining the liability, if d...
Bhagirath Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)13
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioners are accused of offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. They were regularly appearing in court for two years and on 19-1-1988 they were absent and their counsel was also absent and hence, their bail bonds were forfeited. Thereafter, after some times, the date of which is not known they moved a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar giving the reasons on account of which they could not appear on 19-1-1988 and requested for the cancellation of the warrants issued for their arrest they were prepared to furnish fresh bail and bonds. This application has been rejected by the learned Session Judge, Sikar vide order dated 18-11-1988 and the petitioners have now moved this court under Section 438 Cr.P.C.2. It may be mentioned that the petitioners gave out before the trial court that on 19 1-1988, there was the Teeka Ceremony of the grand daughter of petitioner Bhagirath and for this reason they could not appear before th...
Vimal Malawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN117
Milap Chandra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order (Anx. 3) of the respondent No. 2 (Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara) dated March 2, 1988 by which the petitioner has been discharged from her service with immediate effect.2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a lady constable on probation for two years by order dated December 19, 1985 (Anx. 1). It was extended by six months by order dated 24-11-1987 (Anx. 2). Subsequently, she was discharged from the service by order dated March 2, 1988 (Anx. 3). She filed representation (Anx. 4) before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer and it was rejected by his order dated April 8, 1988 (Anx. 5.). Certificates of appreciation (Anxs. 6 to 16) were issued to her. Neither any adverse entry was communicated, nor she was punished in any manner while she was in service. Her services have been terminated because a trainee IPS Officer suspected that letters addressed by him to another lady constabl...
Nand Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)17
Milap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here in after referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur dated February 27, 1981, confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner Under Section 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 50, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (here in after referred to as 'the Rules'). The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. On December 29, 1976, the Food Inspector, Deedwana, Shri H.K. Vishnoi PW 1 inspected the oil mill of the petitioner situated at Kuchaman Road, Deedwana. He took a sample of the Til oil for analysis. He also found that the petitioner was running his business without any licence required under Rule 50 of the Rules. On analysis, the sample of oil was found not conforming to the prescribed sta...
Dhansi, Sardara and Leela Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)255
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 20-7-1980 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:Dhansi Leela, Under Section 307/34, 3 year's R.I. with a& Sardara IPC fine of Rs. 500/- in default, 5 month's RI).-do- Under Section 323, IPC 1 year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 300/- (in default, 3 month's RI)2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, a challan was presented by the police on a First Information Report lodged by Behari at the police station Sansur (District Alwar) for the offences under Sections 147, 323, & 447 IPC, against the accused-appellant, In this FIR it has been stated that the informant, Behari, and Mangu PW 3) were allotted land bearing Khasra No. 228 situated in village Mangalpur measuring 3 Bighas in each case in the year 1976, and since then both of them were cultivating the agricultural land having their possession over it. How ever, in the...
Pramod Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. Director, National Institute of Ayurv ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)380
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. In these two writ petitions, common questions are involved and, therefore, they can be disposed of by this common order.2. The Director of National Institute of Ayurved notified an advertisement on 1-12-1982 inviting applications for direct recruitment on various vacant posts including the post of Laboratory Technicians. The qualifications with regard to the post of Laboratory Technician were as under:**,** Lukrd foKku 2 nks o'kZ dk vuqHko gksLihVy ;k laLFkk esa yscksjsVjh VsDuksyksth dk;Z dk ;k bUVjehfM;sV foKku 3 ,d o'kZ dh vof/k dk fMIyksek bu esfMdy yscksjsVjh VsDuksyksth 4 ,d lky dk fdlh ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ds] iz;ksx'kkyk esa dk;Z djus dk vuqHko**AThe petitioners in pursuance of the said advertisement applied for the post of Laboratory Technicians and they were duly selected by the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the Rules. S/Shri Madhu Sudan Sharma and Dinesh Kumar Tiwari were given appointment vide order dated 31-5-1984 as Laboratory Tech...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »