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.
Ram Nish Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN564
V.S. Dave, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC against the order, dated 13-1-1989, passed by Shri Bahadur Mal Solera, Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra rejecting the application for giving interim custody of the truck alleged to have been seized by the officers of the Forest Department on 31-12-1988, bearing registration No. R.P.F. 2466 to the petitioner.2 Brief facts leading to this petition are that one truck bearing registration No. R.P.F. 2466 is alleged to have been checked by the officers of the Commercial Taxation Department on 31-12-1988 while it was carrying 122 logs of wood. Carrier had no valid papers showing lawful possession of the same, as a result of which the truck was detained and was seized along with wood by Asstt. Commercial Taxation Officer, Special Circle (B), Kota under Section 22(A)(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1955. On receiving information the Flying Squade of the Forest Department also arrived on the spot and Commercial T...
Ranjeetmal Haran and ors. Vs. Santosh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: 1991ACJ1129
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These four appeals and two cross-objections are directed against the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 6.4.1985 in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 55 and 56 of 1979. The M.A.C.T. Case No. 55 of 1979 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Gopichand whereas M.A.C.T. Case No. 56 of 1979 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Shankerlal. Gopichand happens to be the son of deceased Shankerlal.2. As both M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 55 and 56 of 1979 were tried together and were disposed of by a common order and raise common question, I propose to decide all these four appeals and two cross-objections simultaneously by common order.3. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these four appeals and two cross-objections briefly, stated are: that on 21.5.1979 at about 4.45 p.m. Gopichand and his father Shankerlal were going on a cycle from Riktiya-Bheruji-ka-Chauraya towards Residency Road. Gopichand was driving the c...
Abhinandan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)30
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is miscellaneous application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. wherein a prayer has been made that entire proceedings pending against the petitioners for offence under Sections 332 and 451, IPC in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, be quashed on the ground that despite a lapse of period of 10 years the prosecution has failed to complete the trial and further that the order of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate dated 12-3-1987 has not been followed in letter and spirit.2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that on July 22, 1979 a report was lodged by one Mool Chand, an Officer in the NCC at the Government Higher Secondary School, Roopwas. It was mentioned in the application that the complainant was distributing the admission forms on the morning of July 22, 1979 at 10.00 am. The accused-petitioners who were students at that time came to him and asked for admission On his refusal they started snatching the form and attacked him with Lathies a...
Pep Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)52
S.M. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated Sept. 29, 1984, of the Sessions Judge, Balotra dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order dated July 6, 1982, passed by the Collector, Barmer, directing confiscation of Truck No. R.SQ 3217 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, here in after referred to as 'the Act.'2. On December 13, 1981, the Police seized 160 bags of cement from Truck No. R.S.Q. 3217 at the Chouhatan Crossing. Samandarsingh was its driver Pep Singh and Ganpat Raj Luniya were also in the truck. An application was presented before the Collector Barmer, for confiscation of the goods as also the truck. The Collector by the order dated July 6, 1982, directed confiscation of the cement bags and by a separate order dated Feb. 1, 1982, also directed confiscation of the Truck.3. In this revision, we are not concerned with the order directing confiscation of the cement bags. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the o...
Satya Prakash and ors. Vs. Deva Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)437
Milap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115, CPC against the order of the Addl. District Judge, No. 2. Sri Ganganagar dt. 30-5-88 by which he rejected the petitioners application moved under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission for producing secondary evidence to prove Will executed by Smt. Gauran. The facts giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus:2. In the proceedings relating to the preparation of the final decree, a Will was set up by the non-petitioners in their defence. An application Under Section 65, Evidence Act was moved by them for permission to produce secondary evidence of the will on the ground that it is mis-placed or lost along with an affidavit of the petitioner Satya Prakash. The non-petitioner Devaram did not file any reply to this application. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court rejected the application by its order under revision.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the ...
Khalid Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN198
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a petition by Khalid alias Rasheed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated January 18, 1989 passed in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1989 (State v. Major Singh and Ors.) where by he directed framing of charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrapic Substances Act, 1985 to commit an offence under Chapter-IV of the said Act.2. Facts in brief are that according to the prosecution Malluram Assistant Sub-Inspector gave an information on September 20, 1988 regarding some tracks to camel and two persons having been found near Indo-Pak International Border. On the evening of that day the Station House Officer, Poongal reached Chak 4 Pawli and found tracks going upto that place. This created suspicion in his mind that the camel and the two persons were in the same Abadi. The SHO and the Police party, therefore, surrounded this Chak and on the morning of September...
Sriram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)64
V.S. Dave, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment, dated 7-3-1989, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi partly allowing the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment dated 8-2-1984 of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bundi. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge altered the conviction of petitioners from one under Section 379, IPC sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each to one under Section 411, IPC and each of them to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the amount of fine. How ever, the sentence in default of payment of fine was reduced from 5 months' rigorous imprisonment each to 2 months' rigorous imprisonment each.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued this case for some time on merits, then conceded and in my opinion rightly so there are no grounds for interference in concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the court below. He how ever, submits that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while ...
izaz Ahmed Vs. Kapoor Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)75
S.C. Aggrawal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 4th August, 1978 passed by the Munsif Magistrate (West ) Jaipur City, and the order dated23rd july,1986, passed by the additional District judge No. 4, Jaipur city, jaipur, upholding the said order dated 4th August 19782.Non-petitioner had filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and in that suit arrears of rent were provisionally determined by the Munsif, by order dated 13th February,1976. It appears that subsequently there was some default on the part of the non petitioner in payment of rent and an application was submitted by the non-petitioner on 14th february, 1978for striking out the defence of the petitioner the said application of the non-petitioner was allowed by the Munsif by his order dated 4th August. 1978 where by the defence of the petitioner was struck out. the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the additional District judge by has judg...
Gopal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)137
S.S. Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 14, 1987, by which the Sessions Judge, Bundi convicted two of the seven appellants (Gopal and Bala) under Section 302, IPC and the remaining five (Hira, Bajranga, Ram Chander, Bheru and Badrilal) under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month's imprisonment. By the same judgment, he further convicted all of them under Sections 148, 323 or 323/149 IPC and sentence each of them to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50/- and three month's imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25/- under the respective counts. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is short and simple and may briefly be summarised as under. Appellants. Hira, Bala and Badri are the real brothers of the deceased victim Laxman. Appellants Gopal, Bajranga and Ram Chandra are sons of...
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan and 2 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)117
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 24-1-1985 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, where by the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint of the appellant on account of non-prosecution as neither the complainant nor his counsel was present on that day.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 24-1-1985 even if the complainant or the counsel was not present on that day then too also the learned Magistrate is not absolved from his liability to decide the matter. Learned counsel submitted that according to Section 256 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is empowered to acquit the accused on account of non-appearance of the complainant. But in the present case the complaint was that the non-petitioner without obtaining the licence was dealing in sale and purchase of agricultural produce in the market. Learned counsel also submitted that on 29-11-1984 an application was moved on behalf of the accused persons and it was prayed that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »