Rajasthan Court December 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.
Prabhu Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)25
M.B. Sharma, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in this revision which is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated May 3. 1986. Under the aforesaid judgment the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner before him and while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and taking into consideration the fact that the incident took place on April 1, 1974 and by the time the appeal was disposed of 12 years had already passed, reduced the sentence from 2 years rigorous imprisonment to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. I need not go into the facts of the case and it is suffice to say that so far as contravention by the accused petitioner of the Rajasthan Sugar Whole-sale Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 is concerned, ...
Rajasthan Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ram Karan a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC301; 1990ACJ282
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard.2. Claimant like present petitioner is generally suffering for want of proper guidance to the subordinate courts, investigating agencies and the other authorities. In this case, the Rajasthan Water Resources Development Corporation appointed a driver, namely, Rajendra Singh, and the vehicle of the appellant, met with an accident resulting in the death of a child.3. Under Section 92-A, a sum of Rs. 15,000/-has been awarded as no fault liability to the claimant. I agree with the view taken by this court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ghisi Devi 1989 ACJ 728 (Rajasthan). The appeal of the appellant is accepted to this extent that the insurance company is also liable to make the payment. I further direct the Collector, Jaipur, to attach the property of the appellant immediately and to make the payment to the claimant. The claimant will also be entitled to recover the amount from the insurance company. It is further directed that the Executive Direc...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)76
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 6/1987 the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, under the impugned order dated April 1, 1987, so far as the accused non-petitioners are concerned came to the conclusion that only a charge Under Sections 304A, IPC & Section 342, IPC is made get against them. This revision petition has been filed against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge and according to the Public Prosecutor it is a clear case where the charge Under Section 302 IPC should have been framed.2. A look at the impugned order will show that the learned Sessions Judge while framing the charges Under Sections 304A and 342, IPC has observed that a look at the Post Mortem report will show that there was no injuries on the vital part of the body of the deceased and the deceased died as a result of shock. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge opined that instead of a charge Under Section 302, IPC, a charge Under Sections 304 and 342, IPC should be framed.3. I have heard learned Publi...
ismail Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)26
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The conviction of the accused petitioner Under Section 392, IPC has been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1 No. 2, Alwar under his judgment dated December 10, 1986. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also maintained the sentence of the accused petitioner awarded to him Under Section 392, IPC, who was sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to father suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the conviction of the petitioner has been affirmed only on one statement of Shakura PW 3. He contends that Shakura, as per his own statement, he did not know the accused-petitioner prior to the occurrence. According to the learned Counsel, identification parade was held after one year and the conviction based upon the same cannot be sustained.3. The facts of the case are stated in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in det...
Ummed Chand Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN236
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the Order Annexute-2 dated 21-12-1985 where by he was compulsorily retired from service.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are: that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Directorate of Transport on 22-7-1985. He was, how ever, given appointment by promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Sub-Inspector on the recommendation of the D.P.C. vide Order Annexure-1 dated 15-11-1984. Almost 13 months after his promotion, he has been compulsorily retired from Service under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules' here in after).3. The case of the petitioner is that no adverse entries have been communicated to him for the past about five years. One adverse entry was communicated to him about five years back but on an appeal, that entry was was expugned. He has further submitted that no enquiry what so ever has ev...
Shanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN254
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This misc. petition has been filed by Shantilal against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bar refusing to accord permission to compound an offence under Section 498A on the ground that the offence is not compoundable.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosector and the learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Vimla.3. Although some cases have been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner whereby this Court has directed the trial court to grant permission to the parties to compound offence under sec 498A relying on a decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, : 1988CriLJ121 . I am of the opinion that I need not go into this question since. In my opinion, the proceedings in this case could not have been initiated at all on the police challan as in the absence of an information from any of the persons mentioned in clause 4 of the Schedule against the offence under sec 498A....
Smt. Bhoori and anr. Vs. Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)31
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated January 23, 1985 of the learned. Sessions Judge, Sikar. Challenging the aforesaid order the learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised two-fold contention that the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge against the order dated September 27, 1982 was not maintainable and the properties in dispute measuring 4 bighas and 10 biswas comprising in Khasra No 377 was attached and the learned Magistrate ordered to hand over the possession of that land to the petitioner who was in posession of the same on the date of preliminary order or two months prior to it and the said order was upheld by this Court. The revision petition relates to the land measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas, out of khasra No. 377 messuring 15 bighas and 18 biswas situated in village Losal. The Station House Officer of the Police Station Losal filed a report before the Executive Magistrate that there was a dispute in respect of possession on t...
Rajendra Kumar Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN223
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. On 18th Oct., 1985 the Addl. District Magistrate (City) Jaipur, passed an order under Section 145(1), Cr.PC. In the order it was observed that there was dispute between the parties with regard to possession over a godown in the inner chowk of a Haweli (Bhatrajaji Haweli) opposite to Hawamahal, Jaipur. The matter came up before the Court on a complaint by the SHO, Police Station, Manak Chowk, Jaipur. Both the parties had filed cross reports that there was dispute between the parties With regard to possession as party No. 1 alleged that he had been dispossessed by party No. 1 alleged that he had been dispossessed by party No. 2, who is the present petitioner. Both the parties were directed to submit claims in respect of their possession.2. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. But this was dismissed as not maintainable against an interim order. The petitioner has now preferred this petition under Section 482...
Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)424
K.S. Lodha, J.1. One Hurji lodged a complaint before the SHO Police Station, Bichhwada that Smt. Kanku wife Natha had a son Vaja How ever Smt. Kanku left the house of Natha and came to live with the father of complainant Daula as his second wife. After the death of his father, she continued to live with the complainant. On 16-9-1982, Smt. Kanku was seriously ill and was not in her senses. On 25-9-1982, while she was still not in her senses, Vaja took her to his house and on 26-9-1982 in the morning, he called the two petitioners Amarsingh. Tehsildar cum Sub-Registrar, Chhotisadri and Om Prakash, who was working as a clerk and got a Will registered purporting to have been executed by Smt. Kanku. Smt. Kanku died on the same day The Will is said to have been attested by Natha, Bana and Leela and the case of the complainant is to the Will was got attested by him on pretext that a Panchnama of the deceased was prepared. Thus, according to him, the two petitioners were party to the forgery o...
Ram Swaroop Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ865Raj
V.S. Dave, J.1. The petitioner joined the service of erstwhile State of Bharatpur on February 16, 1936 as a Patwari and continued to serve there after the merger of State of Bharatpur into State of Rajasthan. During the period of his service, he did not join duty on being transferred on July 13, 1964 and was therefore, placed under suspension vide letter dated January 19, 1965. He was also charge-sheeted for willful absence. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bay-ana was appointed as Inquiry Officer who submitted an ex pane inquiry report to the Collector, Bharatpur. The Collector, Bharatpur on the basis of the inquiry report submitted to him, after serving a show cause notice as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension. This order came to be passed on May 16, 1966. Having failed in his endeavour to success in appeal against above order to the Revenue Board, he persuaded his remedy only for the pen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »