Rajasthan Court February 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Roop Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)235
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 29-10-1983 passed by Special Judge (A.C.D.) Jaipur by which the appellant has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him.2. The appellant was prosecuted Under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) PC Act The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The learned Special Judge after concluding the trial found that the prosecution has failed to establish its case and acquitted the accused.3. The learned P.P. argued that the learned Judge has committed error in acquitting the accused. It was argued that from the evidence it is clear that the accused can charge Rs. 2/- only from one person but be had charged Rs. 6/- so this amount be had taken by way of illegal gratification. The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the Panchayat by its resolution empowered the Secretary to prepare the map for taking Patta and for preparing one map, he can charge Rs. 2/- f...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)158
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The marriage of the petitioner's sister is to be performed on 23rd Feb. 1989. An affidavit invitation card is enclosed. I am inclined to grant interim bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the accused petitioner.2. It is, further, ordered that accused petitioner Suresh Kumar s/o Ram Lal Meena be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.l0,000'/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case with the farther conditions:1. That the petitioner shall not threaten or influence the witnesses in the case;2. The petitioner shall not commit any offence;3. The petitioner shall surrender at the Central Jail, Jaipur on or before 1st March, 1989.Put up for ...
Abdul Waheed Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)85
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Admitted. With the consent of both the learned Counsel, the case is disposed of at this stage today.2. The petitioner alongwith 3 other persons has been challaned under Sections 147, 323, 341, IPC. After recording evidence of both the sides, the arguments have been heard but the judgment has not been pronounced on the ground that cross case is pending.3. Shri Dhankhar argued that one of the accused Aslam lodged a FIR which was registered under Section 147, 323 IPC The Police submitted final report. Aslam filed a complaint and on 8-2-1988 the court issued process against 8 persons. Two accused bad been served and the remaining are yet to be served. The two accused who have been served have also absconded and proceeding under Section 446, Cr.P.C. are pending, So in cross-case time will be consumed in getting the service on other accused. It was also argued that the petitioner is not the complainant. He has not been examined under Section 202, Cr.P.C. by the complainant....
Jogender Singh and Daljeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN406
S.S. Byas, J.1. Jogendra Singh and Daljeet Singh, appellants before us, are real brothers inter-se. They were convicted Under Sections 302/34 326 and 323/34 IPC and eath was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's like imprisonment under the second count and one month's rigorous imprisonment under the third count by the Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated December 20, 1985.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is, that the appellants are the residents of village Badi, Police Station Khairthal, district Alwar. The deceased-victim was also a resident of the same village. PW 1 Vishambbar Dayal, PW 5 Om Prakash, PW 7 Naresh Kumar, PW 8 Sumar, PW 11 Suman Devi, PW13 Rajeshkumar, PW14 Phoolkaur and PW 15 Dhankaur are his close relativ...
Dhanna Lai and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN489
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Dhanna Lal and Babu Lal have been convicted Under Section 302, IPC and each has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further under go six months' simple imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar by his judgment dated November 23, 1987. The accused have come up in appeal and challenge their conviction.2. Stated in short, the prosecution case is that DW 1 Smt. Bhanwari Bai was a Khatedar tenant of some fields situate in village Kollu Khedi PS Jhawar, District Jhalawar. She sold her Khatedari in some of these fields to PW 1 Ismail Khan and his deceased brother Umrao Khan along with two or three persons on 6-7-1985 by executing the registered sale-deed Ex.P 28 in their favour. Possession of the fields were handed over to them by Smt. Bhanwari Bai on the same day. At about 3.00 or 4.00 p.m on 19-7-1985 PW 1 Ismail went to these fields and found the appellants Dhanna Lal and Babu Lai plough...
Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)437
M.B. Sharma, J.1. An important question is involved in this case as to whether after the expiry of the period of mortgage or 20 years as the case may be, in respect of agricultural land, whether the mortgagee in possession becomes a trespasser or a tenant ?2. The present writ petition is against the judgment dated May 11, 1979, passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer and the said decision rendered in D.B. Appeal No. TA/68/75/Kota Shankarlal and Ors. v. Ram Chandra. The facts of the case are that on Kalyan was khatedar of khasra No. 89 measuring 15 bighas 17 biswas in village Chainpura. Tehsil Baran District Kota. The said land was under mortgage with the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 since S.Y. 1985, i.e. 1982. The petitioner under registered sale deed dated March 16, 1965, purchased the land in dispute from Kalyan, the recorded khatedar and mortgagor of the land in dispute. He filed a suit Under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, the Tenancy Act) for posse...
Bhagwat Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)50
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. Both the sides have received injuries in an incident which took place on 19-1-1989. Both the sides are said to have used fire arms. On the side of the accused petitioners, their father Nawal Singh is said to have fired a gun and this has accused one injury to Gyasi Ram. Nawal Singh who is said to have fired a gun is the main accused and he is not a petitioner before me. The dispute between the parties appears to be about the land and right of way or a Rasta. Considering all the circumstances, when it can be said that Nawal Singh is the main accused and the role assigned to these petitioners is of general nature, then these petitioners can be released on anticipatory bail. 2. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigation Officer, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, in the F.I.R. No. 7/89, is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Bhagwat Singh, Vijay Singh, Khillu, Munshi, Sumran Singh, Girdhar & Khagesh, they be released on bail provided...
Taju Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)302
Farooq Hasan, J.1. An allegedly flirt of 20, appellant Tajukhan who in a broad day light, with his alleged last-loaded criminality apart from sex stress in excess over-powered the temptingly lonely prosecutrix of twenty, Geeta, is said to have raped her in hurried heat have come up before this Court against his conviction under Section 376, IPC and a sentence of 2. year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 50/- (in default, 3 months' R I) by quibbling legalities about poor corroboration, consent and false implication to devalue their credibility.2. The broad facts bearing on the instant act of carnal assault will help delineate the controversy of culpability. This screaming victim in her first information lodged at police station Laxmangarh (Sikar) on 23rd January, 1980, alleged that she was out raged by Tajukhan at 12 in the noon having fulfilled his erotic sortie at height of heap of sand on the road in between Laxmangarh and Sanwali (which is said to have been situated a little beside the road...
Mst. Kamla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)72
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a women having small children and the deceased in this case is her own husband and she has to look after her children, she can be released on bail.2. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Smt. Kamla be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/with one; surely in the like amount with the stipulation to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing during the pendency of the trial against her in this case....
Ram Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)264
G.K. Sharma, J.1 Admit. A notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. With the consent of both the learned Counsel, this revision petition is being disposed at this stage.2. The petitioner was prosecuted for offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, and after trial, the learned Magistrate found him guilty of the said offence, and sentenced him to 6 months' RI and a fine of Rs. 300/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's RI.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner bid not argue on the merits of the case, but only submitted that this was the first offence of the petitioner, and that without any bad intention and only to get himself secured, the petitioner had kept this revolver with him. He also submitted that the petitioner has already been in jail for 12 days, and he prayed that benefit of being released on probation may be granted to the petitioner.4. The learned Public Prosecutor objected to the prayer of the learned Counsel for the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›