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.
Natha Ram and 2 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)338
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is third application for bail. The first bail application was rejected by this court as not pressed on 19-3-1986. That application was on behalf of three petitioners, Natharam, Bhanwararam and Jawanaram. Then the second application was moved on behalf of Natha Ram alone. This application was disposed of by this Court on 2-5-1988. At the time of hearing that application, learned Public Prosecutor had stated that the case was fixed on 6-5-1988 and he will try to see that all the remaining witnesses are examined on that day and if by chance they are not examined on that day, then within ten days thereafter they shall be examined. In view of this statement of the learned Public Proseuctor, learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press the application for bail at that stage and it was observed by this court that it is expected that the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Nagaur shall try to complete the trial of the case, say within a fortnight after the closure of t...
Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)606
I.S. Israni, J.1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374, Cr.PC has been filed against the judgment and order dated December 17, 1986, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, in Sessions Case No. 13/1986, (State v. Naresh Kumar) where by the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo further imprisonment for three months.2. The incident took place on Sept. 26, 1984, at 7.45 p.m., thereupon Jugal Kishore went from the Hospital to the Police Station and lodged a report Ex P 2, on the same day at 8.30 p.m. on the basis of which Ex.P 3, FIR was chalked out. As stated in FIR deceased Kedar did work of Mistri in the factory of his brother-in-law Mangi Lal. Accused appellant was friend of Mangi Lal and both of them took drinks and moved about together. The entire expenditure was borne out by Mangi Lal. Deceased Kedar is all...
Hardeo Gujar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN75
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th January 1988, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No. 25/86. Learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the present appellant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substance Act, 1985, to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, accused appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that on 26th November, 1985 at about 4 A.M., ASI Bajrang Lal. Police Station Pushkar. accompanied by Constable Prem Singh and Mool Dan, left for patrolling duty in the Pushkar fair. While the two officials were having their Patrolling round, they were informed by an informant that one Hazari Gujar resident of Pagara who used to traffic in opium had brought opium and was around the Gujaron-ka-deora near the Brahmaji temple. On receiving this information all th...
Vrihad Krishi Rynadatri Samiti Ltd. and 5 ors. Vs. Revenue Appellate A ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN656
Farooq Hasan, J.1. These two cases (one, Writ Petition No. 386/77 and another Civil Second Appeal No. 75/1981) are concerned with the validity of the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner, Vrihad Krishi Rynadatri Samiti Ltd. Govindgarh in Alwar district (for brevity, the Society') which is the appellant-defendant in (Civil Second Appeal No. 75/1981) which may be conveniently disposed of by one judgment as they involve a point common to these cases and arises out of a dispute relating to identical piece of land in Khasra Nos. 1395, 1396 and 1399 in the Gram Panchayat Rambas Panchayat Samiti Laxmangarh and, therefore, we propose to dispose of them by a single judgment.2. Writ Petition No. 386/1977 had been filed in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated June 26, 1974 (Annexure 2) passed by the Collector, Alwar and the order dated March 14, 1977 ...
Abdul Mazid Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)339
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved with the application submitted by the Investigating agencies for the purpose of re-investigation in the case.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the final report has been submitted under Section 169 of the Cr.PC. He further submits that the learned Magistrate, has not passed any order on the final report. The contention of Mr. Bajwa, in that there is no provision under Section 169 of the Cr.PC to grant permission for the re-investigation or further investigation of the case. Mr. Bajwa, learned Counsel of the petitioners further submits that Section 173 Cr.PC does not apply as charge-sheet under Section 173 has not been filed.3. I agree with Mr. Bajwa, that Section 173 applies only when charge-sheet and part of the charge-sheet has been filed. As far as Section 169, Cr.PC is concerned, it is true that there is no provision-in Section 169 of the Cr.PC empowering or enabling the Pol...
Chhaja Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)567
V.S. Dave, J.1. It is painful to decide an application for recalling the judgment delivered by a senior brother Judge and for that the proper course would have been to refer the matter to the Larger Bench and I expressed the same to the learned Counsel for the parties when the matter came up for hearing, but as the case is largely covered by the various decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and a Full Bench decision of this court I have been pursuaded to decide it sitting in Single Bench. The shprt question involved in this case is as to whether notice to amicus curiae appointed by the court in the court during the course of hearing is a Sufficient notice to the accused and whether such an appointment is an idle formality, i.e. to say whether without giving notice to the accused either by the court or by the learned Counsel who has appeared as amicus curiae and without affording opportunity to the learned Counsel for constituting file and arguing the case, the same should b...
Dropdi Devi and ors. Vs. Jagdish Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj110; 1988(2)WLN413
S.S. Byas, J. 1. This civil second appeal was filed by defendant Kanhaiya Lal, against whom the plaintiff-respondents' suit for cancellation of documents and recovery of possession over the immovable properties and mesne profit was decreed by the two courts below. Kanhaiya Lal passed away during the pendency of the appeal. As such, his legal representatives were brought on record and substituted in his place. The appeal is now being continued and prosecuted by legal representatives.2. In this appeal, an interesting question of Hindu Law, relating to the right of a purchaser of an interest of a coparcener in the joint family property, is involved. There is no judicial pronouncement of our High Court on the point involved.3. The respondents are the heirs and descendants of one Bhagwati Lal Kayastha, as set out in the pedigree mentioned in para '1' of the plaint. Plaintiff Smt. Phool Kanwar is the widow of Bhagwati Lal. Bhagwati Lal had one son Heeralal. Plaintiff Smt. Pam Kanwar is wife ...
Arjun Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)311
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is seventh bail application in a case where the accused was arrested on January 27, 1986 for the alleged murder of his wife. The charge sheet was filed on April 28, 1986 and the accused is facing trial along with another accused Guman Singh, who is on bail.2. The first bail application filed by the accused petitioner was dismissed by this Court under order dated April 17, 1986 observing that the accused may approach this Court again after the charge sheet is filed. The second bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 1134/1986 was filed on the ground that since, the petitioner has remained in custody for 90 days and charge sheet was not filed within 90 days be is entitled to be released on bail. That application, was dismissed by this Court on June 30, 1986 as a view was taken that the time of 24 hours in police custody after the arrest is to be excluded under Section 167 Cr. PC. Another application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bai...
Rajesh Alias Baba Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)322
D.L. Mehta, J.1. The order relating to the suspension of sentence is passed under Section 389 Cr. PC. The Court cannot abuse the powers vested under Section 482 Cr.PC by granting interim bail to the accused person. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is a practice of granting interim suspension of sentence under Section 482 Cr.PC. The power of the Court carrot be arbitrary exercised. Section 482 Cr.PC provides that this court may make such cider as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Court. There is no question of giving effect to any order of this Court because the order or rejection stands and it has already been given effect. The second part is the abuse of process of any court. Now the application rejecting suspension of sentence is an abuse of the process of law cannot be said. In fact, to grant interim relief may be abuse of the process of the law. The Court has inherent powers under Section 389 Cr.PC to suspend the sentence...
Sirajul Haque Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN698
P.C. Jain, J.1. This is a petition for hapeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Priti Tiwari passed her Secondary Examination in the year 1979 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. In the certificate her date of birth is mentioned as 29th June, 1963. She also passed her Bachelor Degree in Arts in 1983, from the Rajasthan University and later on passed MA Examination in the year 1985-86. After passing her examination, she took employment. She came in contact with Sirajul Haque while she was working with the petitioner in Kankariya Gas Service. It is stated by the petitioner Sirajul Haque that the petitioner and Priti Tiwari took a decision at their free will to remain as husband and wife for all purposes and a document was executed between them on 13th June, 1988, The petitioner filed a certificate of Secondary Examination and a certificate of having passed MA Examination from the University of Rajas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›