Rajasthan Court April 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.
Rampal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN39
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition by Rampal and 15 others for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District and the initiation of which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on filing of revision petition No. 11/1987 by the petitioners.2. Ram Gopal, non-petitioner No. 2 filed a private criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur on February 16, 1984, with respect to an incident alleged to have taken place on October 25, 1983. It was alleged in the complaint that non-petitioner No, 2 and his two companions were belaboured by the petitioners. It appears that non-petitioner No. 2 had also lodged a First Information Report at the Police Station. The police gave a final report on April 20, 1984. According to the petitioners, the Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District took cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 323, 324, 149, & 447, IPC on November 13, 1986. This accordi...
Shiv Dutta Parikh Vs. Bhagirath Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj130; 1989(2)WLN232
ORDER1.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the notice of motion under Rule 14 of Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules, 1961 can be delivered to the District Development Officer and whether he can call a meeting. Rule 14 provides that any parich of a Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no-confidence against its Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch shall deliver or cause to be delivered a notice of such motion in writing to the Deputy District Development Officer. The expression Deputy District Development Officer has not been defined in the Panchayat Act. But Clause (16) of Section 2 provides that words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities' and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the later. In the Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959. the expression District Development Officer has been defined to mean the ...
Ramavtar Singh and anr. Vs. Buddha Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: II(1991)DMC390; 1990(1)WLN404; 1989WLN(UC)177
N.C. Sharma, J.1. In (1) Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh (AIR 1963 SC 1521) the appellant, Jagir Kaur, was the first wife of Jaswant Singh. Later on, Jaswant Singh married another lady before going to Africa Jagir Kaur was living at her parental house. In the year 1960, Jaswant came back to India and purchased property in Ludhiana District. When Jagir Kaur had filed an application under Section 488 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana, Jaswant Singh was staying within the jurisdiction of that Court. The question raised before their Lordsihps of the Supreme Court was whether the Magistrate at Ludhiana had jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old). Section 488(8) of the old Code of Criminal Procedure provided that proceedings under Section may be taken against any person in any district where he rasides. The crucial words which came for interpretation were 'resides', 'is' and 'where he l...
Babu and anr. Vs. Kamla Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC216; 1990ACJ182
Milap Chandra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, dated February 10, 1987 by which the claimant-respondent No. 1 has been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 58,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent against the appellant No. 1 Babu (driver of the vehicle) and the appellant No. 2 Yusuf Khan (owner of the vehicle). The respondent No. 2, Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd., has not been held liable to pay the compensation. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. On July 1,1983, the claimant-respondent No. 1 boarded 3-wheeler taxi No. RSF 3049 on hire at Bikaner for going to Gangashahar. At that time, it was being driven by Babu (appellant No. 1) and was owned by his brother Yusuf Khan (appellant No. 2). It met with an accident near Hanumanji's temple, Gangashahar. As a result thereof, claimant-res...
Darbara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)61
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard, Shri Dhankhar, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lokesh Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State.2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur has held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The reasons given for the sentence were that 5 guns, 2 kattas and 8 cartridges were found in possession of the petitioner and the same were unlicensed Section 360(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, inter alia, provides that when any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, and when no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it is appears to the Court before he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be rel...
Guru Nanak Steel Rolling Mill Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN41
1. On the last date it was given out by the learned Counsel for the parties that a limited controversy is involved in the present writ petition as to whether if any sum for the period of disconnection of electricity during the agreement period of five years is due to the Electricity Board, whether the same can be recovered under the provisions of Rajasthan Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1960, Rajasthan Act No. 34 of 1960 (for short the Act). It was, therefore, agreed that the case should be disposed of at the orders stage.2. The facts are not disputed and they are these : An agreement in between the petitioner-firm and the R S.E.B. for the supply of electric energy to the extent of 350 K.VA contract demand was entered into on 13th May, 1976. The electric energy was released to the petitioner by the Board on 8th July, 1976. Therefore, the agreement period of five years was to expire on 7th July, 1981. There is no dispute between the parties that in the aforesaid ...
Parmanand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)115
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the record.2. The accused has been convicted under Section 394, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month's rigorous imprisonment,3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the conviction of the petitioner and rightly so for the reason that the accused was caught red handed after snatching the chain. Learned counsel only presses the question of awarding of sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment to the petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that the accused is of less than 21 years, of age, therefore, leniency may be shown in the matter of awarding sentence.4. Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, I reduce the sentence of the accused petitioner under Section 394 IPC, from 2 years rigorous imprisonment to 8 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of ...
Nand Lal Chotiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)114
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to bring an unfortunate litigation to an end. It is alleged that the accused petitioner was prosecuted for offences under Section 409 and 468, IPC and the challan was filed on 17-1-1978 and since then the trial has not completed and the case is still lingering on for recording the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has cited 14 witnesses in the calender of witnesses. Out of that the prosecution has examined only ten witnesses and still evidence of 4 prosecution witnesses remains to be recorded.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from 1978 to till this date the trial has proceeded in a snail pace for the last more than 11 years. Learned counsel submits that for trial which remained pending for more than 11 years, the accused is entitled to be discharged because of the lethargy and incompetency of the prosecution. In support of his contention learned Coun...
Mansha Ram Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN247
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner Shri Mansha Ram Purohit was a District Judge in the ordinary scale in substantive capacity, when be was given promotion in the Officiating capacity in the selection scale of Rs. 1800-2250 on 21st of June, 1961. Earlier he was drawing a salary of Rs. 1180/- in the ordinary scale. In the selection scale he was drawing a salary of Rs 1900/- when he retired on 9th of November, 1962. He had been paid his pension and gratuity taking into account his substantive pay in the ordinary scale of the District Judge. How ever, he claimed that In was entitled to his pension and gratuity on the basis of the officiating pay he was drawing at the time of his retirement This contentions of the petitioner was negatived by the State Government and, therefore, he had to file this present writ petition.2. We have heard the in learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused th...
Arjun Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)491
V.S. Dave, J.1. Petitioner approached this Court through jail in art application purported to be one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein he submitted that his fundamental rights as-guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution have been infringed in as much as case have been. pending against him since last more than six years which had been registered in the year 1981 and 1983. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than six years and four months. His submission in the application is that he has approached this Court earlier also in a writ petition where the Division Bench of this Court had directed the early disposal of the case but the hopes expected by this Court have been bailed. This application when was received by the Registry, was placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice on 8th March 1989 on which day Hon'ble Chief Justice directed that the case should be registered as criminal misc. case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thereafter it was li...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »