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.
Munshi Ram S/O Moti Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1988
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN469
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. Mr. D.K. Purohit, learned Counsel for the accused appellants states that Shri Munshi Ram s/o Moti Lal, appellant has died while he was in jail on 25-6-1981 and he has produced a certificate of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner to this effect which is taken on the record. His appeal, therefore, abates.2. As regards appeal of the accused, Ram Lal is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant urges that the accused appellant is in jail since 3-5-1980 and the question of sentence may be considered in his appeal. He does not wish to challenge the conviction of the accused appellant.3. The accused Ramlal has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh on 28-4-1981 in Sessions Case No. 65/80 ft r the offence under Section 304, Part I, IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of a Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen day's simple imprisonment. The appellant is in jail since 3-5-1980, ...
Gajender Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)460
K.S. Lodha, J.1. Appellant Gajender Singh has been convicted under Section 304, Part-II, IPC and sentenced to 2-1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, by his judgment dated 8-2-1979. He has. therefore, come up in appeal.2. The facts which are now not in dispute and as have been found by the learned Sessions Judge himself are that one Kanji accused was wanted in connection with an offence under Section 307, IPC and a warrant of arrest had been issued against him being Ex. D 3, dated 4-9-1976: In pursuance of this warrant the present appellant Gajender Singh, who was at the time posted as Head Constable at Police Station, Banswara, was sent to village Pipalwa to affect the arrest of Kanji. It appears that the accused Gajender Singh went to the bouse of Badariya father of Kanji and arrested Kanji at about 5.30 p.m. on 4-9-1976. Kanji tried to rescue the arrest but he was overpowered by Gajender Singh. In the meantime Badariya also tried to resist Kanji a...
Raj Karan and anr. Vs. Jeewan Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)367
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Sardarshahar dated 21-1988 whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application of the complainant to examine Shri Lunaram Patwari and Shri Prtapsingh Purwa, Advocate as court-witnesses, after the defence closed its evidence and specially when these witnesses were cited as prosecution witnesses but they were not examined by the complainant.2. The complainant moved his application on 17-2-1987 about the examination of these two witnesses as court-witnesses pleading, inter alia, that the defence witnesses have denied the occurrence of fire. It is not a formal denial but they have stated that no such fire took place and, therefore, in order to rebut their version, these witnesses should be examined as court witnesses. The accused-persons filed the reply on 21-11-1987 pleading inter alia, that these witnesses, which were cited as prosecution witnesses by the complainant, a...
Mohanlal Vs. Kurkut Utpadak Sahakari Samiti, Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj102; 1988(2)WLN324
ORDERMilap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated July 9, 1985 by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated Dec. 23, 1981 by which he fixed the standard rent of the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 250/-per month from the date of the suit. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit under Section 6, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') in the Court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur with the allegations in short, that the shops Nos. 2, 3 and 7 were let out to the defendant on total monthly rent of Rs. 103/- the rent of each shop as on Jan. 1, 1962 was Rs. 35/- per month the cost of construction and maintenance has tremendously increased since then, the disputed shops are situated in premier loca...
Deenu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)187
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas who had partly allowed the appeal and had reduced the substantive sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment on each count imposed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas.2. The charge against the petitioner was that on the night intervening 8th and 9th October, 1977, he had opened the shutter of a hotel (small Restaurant) and one more adjoining shop and removed some goods. He was apprehended on the spot and certain goods were recovered from him.3. I need not narrate the detailed story and discuss the facts of the case as the conviction has not been challenged before me and in my opinion rightly so since there is concurrent f...
Rajasthan State Co-op. Dairy Federation Vs. Brij Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: 1990ACJ118
R.S. Verma, J.1. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), by its award dated 14.2.1985 has held respondent No. 1 Brij Mohan Lal entitled to recover Rs. 25,500/-, jointly and severally from the appellant Rajasthan State Co-operative Dairy Federation (hereinafter called 'the Federation') and Haridas respondent No. 2, along with interest at 9 per cent per annum from 21.5.1980 till recovery. By this very award, it has dismissed the claim of aforesaid Brij Mohan Lal against respondent No. 3, the Pashchimi Rajasthan Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (hereinafter called 'Pashchimi Sangh'), Jaipur Zila Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (hereinafter called 'Jaipur Zila Sangh') and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the insurer'). Aggrieved the Federation has come in appeal.2. In a nutshell, the case of respondent No. 1 Brij Mohan Lal, as set out in his up-to-date amended claim petition, was that on 27.11.1979, at about 3 p.m., his ...
Mool Chand Sharma Vs. Hari Shanker Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)170
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This revision by the defandant is directed against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur city Court No 2 dated November 11, 1987. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment of a shop on the ground of default in the payment of rent, sub-letting and reasonuable and bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff. The suit was filed on March 12, 1980. Issues in the case were framed on August 10, 1981. Both the parties led their evidence and thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments On October 9, 1987 the arguments of the plaintiff's counsel were completed and thereafter, the case was fixed for the arguments of the learned Counsel for the defendant on October 12, 1987. An adjournment was sought on behalf of the defendant and the case was adjourned to October 13, 1987. Again an adjournment was sought and the case was fixed on October 15, 1987. On October 15, 1987 also an adjournment was sought and the case was fixed on October 17, 1987 fo...
Anwar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)195
V.S. Dave, J.1. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the night intervening 18th and 19th June, 1988 and soon after the incident, the injured was taken to the hospital. Doctor has mentioned that the patient was quite conscious when he came to the hospital and when he inquired as to how he had sustained the injuries, the injured was unable to disclose the name of any assailants and said that some theif might have done so. He wanted to refer them to the police but the complainants were reluctant to do so as they neither knew the assaillants nor have doubt on any person. It was after two days that the FIR was lodged where a knife injury has been attributed to the accused person but that is in contravention to the injury report placed before me which shows that the accused had only one lacarated would. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. l am inclined to accept the bail application.2. The SHO/AO/IO, Police Station, Kanwao, District Kota in FIR No. 73/88, is, t...
Bhom Raj and anr. Vs. Devi Singh Bhati
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj142
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. Bhomraj and Purnaram, registered electors of Kolayat Assembly Constituency No. 14 of Rajasthan, have filed this election petition against the returned candidate Shri Devisingh Bhati. The election was held on 5-3-85 in pursuance of the notification issued on 1-2-85 under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). As per the programme issued by the Election Commission of India under Section 30 of the Act, the following dates were appointed : --(a) 8-2-85 (Friday) as the last date for making nomination; (b) 9-2-85 (Saturday) as the date for the scrutiny of nominations; (c) 11-2-85 (Monday) as the last date for withdrawal of the candidature; (d) 5-3-85 (Tuesday) as the date for the poll; (e) 9-3-85 (Saturday) as the date before which the election shall be completed. After rejection of two nomination papers, the following candidates remained in thefield :-- (1) Shri Devisingh Bhati (respondent), (2) Smt. Kanta Khat...
Sameer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1163; 1988(2)WLN303
ORDERNavin Chandra Sharma, J.1. On the basis of the provisions contained in Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Yakub Ibrahim : 1974CriLJ597 the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that a question had arisen as to whether, when or how the petitioner had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan and this question could only be determined by competent authority prescribed under the said provision.2. Article 5 of the Constitution provides that at the commencement of the Constitution every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and (a) who was born in the territory of India; or (b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or (c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, be a citizen of India. Article 6 of the Constitution is an exception to Article 5 and it makes those persons also c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »