Rajasthan Court January 1989 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.
Bhagirath Mal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)440
P.C. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order No. SDAE/40/3/1/19/83 dated 25th June, 1983, passed by the Assistant Security Officer, whereby he was removed from service The petitioner has further prayed that the order dated 28th September, 1983, passed by the Security Officer in appeal, where by his appeal was dismissed, be also quashed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Rakshak on 7th March, 1963, on the post of Rakshak at Mahsana, Rajkot. The petitioner remained pasted from the date of his appointment till 1970, in Rajkot Div. at various places. The petitioner was there after transferred to Ajmer Div. and upto the date of his termination, he remained there. While the petitioner was working as Rakshak at Ajmer, Shri D.L. Joshi, respondent No. 3, came to be appointed as Assistant Security Officer at Ajmer in the year 1981. The petitioner has furthe...
Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj104; 1989WLN(UC)363
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Motion of no confidence was moved against the present petitioner which was carried out in the meeting held on 5-5-1988. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the meeting held on 5-8-88 on number of grounds. However, taking note of decision of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Singh v. State of Raj (AIR 1990 Rajasthan 69), he has agreed only on the point that the motion of no-confidence was not declared for consideration by the Presiding Officer and there is a clear violation of Rule 15 Clause (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961.2. Mr. Sharma with all his vehemance at his command submitted that it is the requirement of the democratic process that the motion of no-confidence should be discussed and there should be opportunity for discussion. He has invited our attention to para No. 6 of the reply to the writ petition. In this para No. 6, it is mentioned that the Presiding Officer ...
Uma Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)121
V.S. Dave, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the charge-sheet placed before me along with 173, Cr.P.C. documents, by learned Public Prosecutor. The only offence with which the accused ha8 been charged in this charge-sheet is Section 336, IPC which read as under:336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others-Who ever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend so three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.2. A bare perusal of the ingredients of Section 336 IPC makes it abundantly clear that there is no question of confiscation of the gun and in that eventuality it would be futile to keep it in the custody of the court and deprive the petitioner from possessing the same particularly when the prosecution itself did not consider it proper to invoke the provisions of...
Shyam Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)51
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 93/88 against the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 16-12-1988 where by he rejected the application for recalling the witnesses under Section 311, Cr.P.C. The sessions case was fixed on 15the and 16th December, 1988. On 15-12-1988 when the witnesses were produced before the Court, an application was moved by learned Counsel for the accused Shyamlal who was in custody that his file has been sent to Jaipur as the bail application of the accused is listed in High Court hence he could not prepare the case and the statements of the witnesses may be conferred. He also mentioned that he is prepared to pay the expenses of the witnesses according to the rules. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and he recorded the statement of witnesses PW 1 to PW 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not cross examine the witnesses since he was not prepared. On 16th Decem...
Bheru Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)282
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The only contention raised before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that even accepting the material on record, the accused could not have been convicted Under Section 302 IPC but he could have been held guilty only Under Section 304 Part-I IPC. He does not contest the fact that it was the accused who had given blows with a pair of scissors on the person of the deceased Dalchand. How ever, his; contention is that in the manner and in the circumstances in which these blows were inflicted by the accused, the accused could not be imputed the intention of causing the death of Dalchand or causing such injuries to Dalchand as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.2. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge in para No. 23 of his judgment dated 5-10-83 is that the deceased Dalchand happened to pass in front of the shop of the accused Bheru Lal, while Bheru Lal was giving hair dressing to one Jagdish, the accused abruptly left hair dressi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›