Rajasthan Court January 1989 Judgments
Hem Singh Alias Vijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)41
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner is accused in a case under Sections 395, 397 and 307, IPC The incident is said to be of February, 1983.The other accused in the case have already been tried and some of them have been convicted and one has acquitted. This petitioner was arrested only in October, 1988. From the case diary it appears that search for him was made in 1983, but he has not available and thereafter he could be arrested only in October, 1988. It appears that in between no search was made for him. This petitioner has been identified by one witness and there is no recovery at his instance. At this stage it would not be appropriate to express opinion on the merits of the case, but considering that search for him does not appear to have been made from 1984 onwards and that he has been identified by one witness only, he can be released on heavy bail with appropriate conditions.2. The petitioner Hem Singh alias Vijender Singh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a person...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)54
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 376, IPC. The incident is of 24th October, 1987 and the report of the same was lodged on 31st Oct., 1987 at the Police Station Mandawar and the petitioner was arrested only on 6th January, 1987.2. The prosecutrix in the case is Sushila who, at the time of commission of the offence was 11-13 years of age according to the Medical Report. She was examined medically and the Medical Report corroborates the commission of the offence.3. The main argument, which is urged on behalf of the petitioner is that he was 15-1/2 years of age at the time when the offence was committed. In support of it, a certificate of age, obtained from the school where he had studied has been produced. It has also been mentioned in the application that the age certificate was produced before the Sessions Judge but no reference has been made in its order, rejecting the bail of the petitioner.4. Under Section 437, Cr.P.C. there is a provision that i...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj69
Israni, J. 1. Under this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings that took place in meeting held on Aug. 26, 1988 wherein motion of no-confidence against the petitioner who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kaliyasar, Panchayat Samiti Alsisar was passed and in consequence thereof notice dated Dec. 8, 1988 (Annexure-4) was issued and it has been prayed that the above mentioned notice and the proceedings of meeting dated Aug. 26, 1988 be quashed and appropriate order/direction be issued that the petitioner continues to be Sarpanch.2. It has been stated by the petitioner in the petition that he was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kaliyasar on July 6, 1988. He was administered oath on the same day. The Additional District Development Officer, Jhunjhunu under notice dated Aug. 18, 3988 convened a special meeting of the village panchayat for consideration of motion of no-confidence moved against the petitioner by some of the panchas. This meeting was to be held on Aug. 26...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Phool Chand Garg and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ125; 1990(1)WLN201
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Ordinarily we would not have liked to go in this appeal into the question to legality of the order 1987 Raj Cri C 72 dated February 6, 1987, of the learned single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 2386/86 as after the aforesaid order was made, investigation was taken over by the CBI and the investigation is said to be almost complete but because a larger issue about the powers of this court to interfere at the stage of investigation or transfer of the case from the local police to CBI, is involved we will proceed to examine the issue.2. We may at the outset State that we would not like to go into the question whether the death of Praksah Chand Garg was as a result of the accident as alleged by the prosecution or was a murder as alleged by Phool Chand Garg, his brother. This is a matter which depends on the collection of evidence and is to be adjudged by the court. All that we may state in this Special appeal is that one Damodar Prasad who is said to be the nephew of Pho...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Sogani and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR54(Raj)
Kapur, J.1. Complaints under Sections 276B and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have been filed against the accused petitioners who are partners of the firm, Universal Supply Corporation. Eight complaints have been lodged because, according to the contention of the Department, the petitioners failed to deposit tax which was deducted by them while paying interest to eight creditors. The total amount of such tax deducted comes to Rs. 1,33,810. This tax has to be deducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 194A of the Income-tax Act. The petitioners admit that this tax was not initially deposited with the Department but it has been subsequently deposited within four months along with in unrest at 15% per annum as is provided under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The total interest deposited is Rs. 6,686. It is, in these circumstances, that these applications for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the petitioners are to be considered. On the complaints, the Chief Judicia...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj81
1. An important question involved in this writ petition is as to whether once a calendar for election in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, the Act of 1965) and under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules) has been fixed, all steps except the polling which had been stayed by this Court in the writ petition, were taken, whether -on dismissal or withdrawal of the writ petition in which the stay order as aforesaid was made, the entire process of election has to restart or has to take place from the stage at which it was stayed? Mr. M.I. Khan, contended that the election process started and there is an alternative remedy efficacious under Section 75 of the Act and, therefore, this court should not interfere. No doubt this court has taken this view in few cases but as shall be presently (com, second column)a) Publication of provisional voters list inviting objectionsthereto . 12-5-1987b) Hearing of obje...
Tag this Judgment!Mehtab Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)87
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The case against the petitioner is under Section 307, IPC and this application has been moved under Section 439, Cr.P.C. The incident put of which the case arises has occurred on 17-5-88 and cross-cases were registered at the Police Station Laxmangarh, district Sikar. On the side of the accused petitioner one person died and some 3 or 4 persons received injuries. The injuries were caused by sharp and blunt weapons. On the side of the complainant, five persons were injured and at the time of examination the doctor reported that all the injuries were simple in nature. Later on his opinion was asked and he reported that the injury of one person on the scalp could be fatal to life. Details of the same were not given to link with the injuries but it could be said that the reference to the injuries of Hanif.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that on the report lodged by the complainant party, the Police had given a Final Report but later on...
Tag this Judgment!Kewalchand and anr. Vs. SatyanaraIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj49
Navin Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This is first appeal by Kewalchand and Hastimal against the decree of the Additional District Judge Nagaur dated February 22, 1988 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 12,000/- and ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises and also awarding to the plaintiff damages for use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month.2. Facts leading to the filing of this first appeal are that on September 28, 1983 plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Satyanarain instituted Civil Original Suit No. 19 of 1983 against partnership firm M/s Oswal Metal IndustriesNagaur and impleaded Kewalchand and Hastimal appellants as defendants in their capacity as partner of the said firm. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the suit premises were situated on the west of Railway Station, Nagaur and were bounded as described at the foot of para 1 of the plaint. It was alleged that the defendants took these premises on r...
Tag this Judgment!Pali Ram and ors. Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)435
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This second appeal is by the tenants in a suit for eviction from a shop situate in Chirawa. The respondent Hira Lal had filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on three grounds, namely, (i) default in payment of rent (ii) reasonable and bonafide personal necessity; and (iii) material alteration of the premises. The Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class Chirawa by his judgment and decree dt. 13th November, 1979 decided against the respondent on the issue of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity and as regards the default in payment of rent also it was held that the decree for eviction could not be passed because the appellants have deposited the rent in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. The Munsif, how ever, decided issue with regard to material alteration against the appellants and passed a decree for eviction on the ground. The said decree of the Munsif has been affirmed in appeal by th...
Tag this Judgment!Surja Ram Vs. Hassan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)407
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 29th August, 1981 & 31st Dec. 1981 passed by the Executive Magistrate Parbatsar.2. Petitioner Surjaram submitted a complaint under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. in the court of Executive Magistrate. Parbatsar on 12th May, 1981. The learned Magistrate on that date passed a preliminary order and appointed the Tehsildar, Makrana as Receiver for this property, who asked to submit (his report by 22nd May, 1981. From the copies of the order-sheets, it reveals that no report was submitted by the Tehsildar upto 6th June, 1981. Then the learned Magistrate fixed 6th July, 1981 for seeing the site and on that date without giving any notice to the petitioner or his counsel, the site was inspected and be inquired from the neighbours as to who was in possession of the disputed property. Thereafter, without recording evidence of the parties the learned Magistrate passed order on 22nd July, 1981 asking both the parties to lead ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »