Rajasthan Court July 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Pemaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1071; 1988(2)WLN289
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J. 1. These two petitions have been moved under Section 482, Cr. P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the similar orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali dated November 16, 1987 by which he granted last opportunity for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and awarded Rs. 1000/- each as costs to the accused persons in Sessions Trials Nos. 53/85 and 1/85 of his court. The facts of the cases giving rise to these Petitions may be summarised thus.2. In the aforesaid Sessions trials, the accused-respondents were committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bali. In both the cases, the Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Manohar Singh Advocate appearing in his court disclosed on July 15, 1986 and Aug. 25, 1986 respectively that he would not be able to conduct the cases on behalf of the Slate as he had been the counsel for the accused-persons. The same day, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali directed Shri Manohar Singh, A.P....
Mukesh Mathur Vs. Smt. Veena Mathur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj97; 1988(2)WLN439
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Family Court, Jaipur on a petition for divorce filed by the appellant husband. The husband has been granted divorce on the ground that the wife is suffering from mental disorder Under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. While granting divorce on this ground, permanent alimony at Rs. 350/- p. m. has also been granted to the wife Under Section 25 of the Act. The appellant husband is aggrieved only by the grant of permanent alimony, while the wife has made no grievance against any part of the Family Court's judgment. The only question, therefore, is whether there is any ground to interfere with the award of permanent alimony to the wife Under Section 25 of the Act while granting divorce to the husband on the ground of wife's mental disorder.2. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are two. The first contention is that the wife was suffering from mental illness even prior to the marriage on 21-1-83 and, the...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ratna
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)464
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor in support of this revision. Non-petitioner remained absent despite service.2. Facts in brief are that Ratna non-petitioner had lodged a First Information Report with the Superintendent of Police Sirohi on Jan. 9, 1978 Jetha therein that on the night of January 8, 1978 Jetha son of Chamna assaulted his servant Magna and also committed theft of Urea bag and some electric machines. It was also stated that some fodder was also burnt. On the basis of this report, a case was registered at Police Station Barloot under Section 447, 435, 427, 380, 342 and 323 IPC. After investigation, the Police found that the FIR lodged by the non-petitioner was false and a final report was submitted to the court of the Judicial Magistrate accepted the final report. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police Sirohi filed a criminal complaint against the non-petitioner under Section 182 Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi by his order dated...
Niraj Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)106
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of the First Information Report (in short FIR) No. 89/87 registered at the Police Station, Modak.2. M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd., respondent No. 3 carries on business of manufacturing and sale of cement at Modak in Distt. Kota. The petitioner was appointed as handling and clearing agent of respondent No. 3 and he carries on business at Ghaziabad in the State of U.P. On 16th November, 1987 a complaint was submitted on behalf of respondent No. 3 before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ramganj Mandi, where in it has been alleged that the petitioner has misapporpriated a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/-received by him on behalf of respondent No. 3 and has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420, IPC. On the said complaint the Judicial Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) CPC directing the SHO Police Station, Modak to register a case a...
Damodar Pukhraj Chandak Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)137
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In this writ petition Pukhraj Chandak, the proprietor of M/s Damodar Pukhraj Chandak has challenged the legality of the order Ex. 5 dated November 25, 1987 by which his authorisation for the fair price shop at village Kolu Pabuji was cancelled and respondent No. 4, Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kolu Pabuji, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur was appointed as the authorised fair price shop at that village. The petitioner was appointed as the authorised fair price shop at village Kolu Pabuji vide order Annexure-1 dated January 3, 1987 and deposited the required amount of security on 5th January, 1987. The authorisation letter Annexure-3 dated 8th January, 1987 issued Under clause 3(4) of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and other Essential Articles (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short 'the Order of 1976' here in after). It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner did the supply work in accordance with the order to his utmost capacity and all fairness a...
Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)179
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.2. The facts and circumstances of the case have been considered and also the matters which can be said to be in favour of the petitioner. One of them is that he is an employee of the Indian Overseas Bank and number two, that while making the investigation, the police has so far not, recorded the statement of the Returning Officer who could be the best witness of the incident which occured in the polling booth. Other voters and polling agents have been examined but independent person is not before this Court. In these circumstances anticipatory bail can be granted.3. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, P.S. Khetri District Jhunjhunu in FIR No. 103/88 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Amar Singh son of Shri Roopa Ram by Caste Jat, resident of Ilakjhar he be relased on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thou...
Siya Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)191
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. An incident occurred on the night of 13/14th April, 1988 in which dacoity was committed at the house of Sita Ram and Jasodra. It is alleged that 10 or 12 dacoits who were armed with arms came and they fired and took away one boy and two girls. In this incident the petitioner was arrested on 25-5-1988. His bail application has been rejected by the Special Judge, Dholpur by order dated 24-6-1988.2. In his petition it has been contended that the only evidence against the petitioner is, identification by one witness Vishanlata and this should not be taken to be sufficient evidence for the purpose of retaining the petitioner in custody. Second circumstance is that the dacoits while talking to each other took names and name of Siya Ram was also taken by them. However, this fact does not find place in the FIR.3. Several opportunities were given to the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the case diary in this case but the same has not been produced for the perusal of thi...
Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)342
Milap Chandra, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dt. January 11, 1979 by which he has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. On August 1, 1977, at about 11 p.m. the injured-informant Brijlal (PW 2) was sleeping in his house along with his father Nandram (PW 3) and brother Hotram situated at Manak Tibi (P.S. Tibi) (Sri Ganganagar). The accused-appellant Jagdish had enmity with him since long. He came there and started abusing him. When Nandram (PW 3) resented, he proclaimed that he would kill them. He fired a shot from his pistol. Its pellets caused injuries on his hand. On his hue and cry, Dhanram, Sheolal, Hamir Singh and several other villagers came there. FIR Ex.P 2 was lodged in the Police Station, Tibi (Sri Ganganagar) at 8.15 a m on August 2. 1977. A...
Sedya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)179a
P.C. Jain, J.1. Shri Dhankar, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, has placed reliance on 1986 RLW 325 and submitted that since two co-accused have been enlarged on bail under Section 438, Cr.PC in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1830/1988, the petitioner being similarly placed should be allowed the benefit of bail.2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.3. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police Station, Bandikui (Jaipur) in FIR No. 78/1988 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:[1] That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;[2] That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly...
Zakir HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)344
Milap Chandra, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 30th September, 1978 by which the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. On January 19, 1975, the informant-injured Asgar Ali (PW ) had gone for the call of nature to the public latrines situated behind Wazirpura, Udaipur. He was accosted and beaten by nine accused while he was returning. He came running to Lanka Chowk where he was surrounded by another set of the accused persons including the accused-appellant who had a knife in his hand. These accused-persons inflicted injuries with their Lathis and knife. He fell down on the ground. The accused-persons left the place thinking, that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »