Rajasthan Court May 1989 Judgments
Rampal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN430
V.S. Dave, J.1. In this miscellaneous petition show-cause notice was issued on 31-5-1988 as to why the petition should not be admitted. The petition has been filed against the order, dated 5-5-1988 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate' Ist Class, with a {prayer for quashing the entire proceedings pending in the said court in criminal case State v. Rampal.2. Brief facts leading to this case are that one Jagannath who has been impleaded as complainant-respondent No. 2 in this case, filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonic on 4-1-1982, wherein it was alleged by him that the complainant is an agriculturist. He on 5-4-78 handed over 11 bags of Jeera weighing 5 quintal and 500 grams and 5 bags of Dhania to accused Rampal. He alleged that he handed over the aforesaid goods with a direction that the goods will be sold only when he (complainant) asks the accused to do so and till then they will be retained in the godown. Along with the complaint, one Bhuwan...
Tag this Judgment!Keshar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)46
V.S. Dave, J.1. Accused petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 302, IPC in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar. The accused was arrested in March, 1988 and he moved an application for bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. before this court which was rejected by this Court on 10-5-1988 observing that it would be open to the petitioner to move a bail application after the charge sheet is submitted. The accused there after had moved another bail application on August 1, 1983 after submission of the charge-sheet but that too was rejected. How ever, direction was given to the trial court to complete the trial within four months from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of the order was communicated to the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar vide letter No. CR/Judl. /88/6856 dated 9-9-1988 But till date trial is not complete despite the fact that 8 months have elapsed.2. Public Prosecutor could not furnish any cogent reason for not completing the prosecution evidence till now. The accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Brig. Gurdial Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1989
Reported in: 1(1990)WLN(Rev)583
J.R. Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction for payment of compensation in respect of land which was taken possession of by the Rajasthan Canal Project Department for construction of Rig bunds and syphons. The petitioner has sought for payment of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 19-12-1980 Anx. 4 together with interest thereon at rate of 12 per cent per annum. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was in active service and behind his back the petitioner's land was taken possession of without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioner represented the State authorities. Ultimately an application was moved before the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 19-12 1980 determined the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,28,220/-. As per the petitioner's case his 34 Bighas land was taken possession of and in exch...
Tag this Judgment!ChaIn Singh and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Raj17; [1994(68)FLR373]; 1989(2)WLN616
M.C. Jain, Actg. C.J. 1. The petitioners, in the above petitions, have prayed for declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated and/ or continued in pursuance of the notification Annexs. 1 and 2 are wholly void and illegal and the proceedings have in fact lapsed and they have sought quashing of notifications issued under Section 4(1), 6(1) and 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 dated August 10, 1983 published in Rajasthan Raj-Patra dated 8-9-83 and notification issued under Section 17(1) dated 10-12-84 published in Rajasthan Raj Patra on the same date. They have also sought quashing of the notice under Section 9 dated 13-10-88 (Annx. 3). They have further prayed that the respondents be directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed land in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications and they have further sought quashing of the General Awards dated 29-12-88 and specific award dated 30-12-88. 2. According to the petitioners, they are the Khatedars of...
Tag this Judgment!Local Health Authority Vs. Mewa Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN450
G.K. Sharma, J.1. The Local Health Authority, Tonk, has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30th Jan., 1981, passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby, it has accepted the appeal of respondent Mewalal, and set aside the judgment of conviction passed against him by the CJM, Tonk, vide his judgment dated 27th Jan., 1978.2. On a complaint of Food Inspector. Mani Shanker Sharma, respondent Mewalal was prosecuted for selling adulterated 'Gur' used for human consumption. On 29th Sept, 1979, the Food Inspector, after giving a notice to the accused-respondent, took some sample of 'Out' after paying. 90 paise for 600 gms. from Mewalal. The sample was then divided into 3 parts, kept in 3 bottles, sealed and one of the said bottles was sent to public analyst, for examination. The sample of 'Gur' was found by the public analyst, as adulterated. After obtaining necessary sanction from the District Magistrate, Mewalal was prosecuted for offence Under Section. 7/16 of the Prevention of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Vs. Prasan Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)425
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, dated March 9, 1989. whereby he has over-ruled the objection of the respondents that by virtue of Section 75 read with Section 137 and 143 of the Rajasthan Cooperatives Act, 1965 (here in after referred to as 'the Act), a civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute.2. The brief facts giving raise to this petition are that the petitioner filed a civil suit challenging the order of the management of transferring the petitioner back to the Government of Rajasthan by the order dated March 2, 1976 It is this order which has been challenged in the civil court and in these proceedings the aforesaid objection was raised that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.3. Mr. Parihar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of Section 75, the civil court has no jurisdiction and plaintiff should first approa...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN411
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Municipal Council, Kota has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6-12-1980 by which, the trial court has acquitted the respondent from the charge Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The Food Inspector on 16-3-1973 took sample of the milk of the respondent and kept in three separate bottles in equal proportion and sealed the bottles in presence of the motbirs. One of the bottles was dent for to Chemical examination to Public Analyst and on examination it was found that the sample contained about 9% water and abstraction of about 53% of original fat. One sample was also sent by the respondent accused to the Director Central Food Laboratories Calcutta and no receipt of the report it was found that the milk was not upto the standard of purity. A complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate and after trial the learned Magistrate, found that the case against accused is not made out beyond reasonable doubt and he acquitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Gyarsa and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN416
N.C. Sharma, J.1. All the five appellants have been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced to three year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Gyarsa, Rameshwar and Teja have further been convicted under Section 148, IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Surja and Jagdish, appellants, have also been convicted under Section 147, IPC and sentenced to 9 month's rigorous imprisonment. These convictions and sentences have been recorded by the Sessions Judge, Sikar by his judgment dated July 31, 19812. The facts leading to this prosecution are that on November 17, 1980, at 9 30 p m. Prabhata (PW/9) lodged a First Information Report at the Police Station Pa tan, District Sikar, alleging that at about 7.00 pm Nands (PW13), who is resident of Panchu Kbarakda-within the Police Station, Patan, this that the goat was bleating and it seems that someone was taking away the goat. Nanda went after the person taking the goat. Prabhata (PW/9) als...
Tag this Judgment!Jamil Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)47
G.K. Sharma, J.1. I would like to observe that when case under Section 494, IPC is compoundable, the offence under Section 498A, IPC which is connected with the case of offence under Section 494, IPC should also be made compoundable with the permission of the court.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying that the remark mentioned in Para 5 of the Order dated 3-5-1989 passed by the Sessions Judge Kota, be impugned.3. Jamil Ahmed filed a complaint under Sections 416 to 419, 120B & 420, IPC against the Non-Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156, Clause 3, Criminal Procedure Code to the Police Station, Kaithooni Pole, Kota for necessary action. The case was registered at the Police Station and investigation started. The Non-Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 moved an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 3-5-1989 granted the application but in Para 5 of the Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra and ors. Vs. Smt. Basanti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)89
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 1-5-1989 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which, the application of the non-petitioners has been rejected.2. A criminal was under Section 494, 497, 498A & 120B, IPC was pending against the petitioners on the complaint of the non-petitioner Smt. Basanti. The dispute was between husband Shri Kailash Chandra (petitioner) and Smt. Basanti wife (non-petitioner). To understand the real controversy it is necessary to mention that one divorce case was pending between Kailash Chandra and Smt. Basanti. The trial Court declined to pass the decree for divorce. The matter came to this Court and on re-conciliation between the parties the matter was compromised and both husband and wife agreed to live together as married life. With this background as the criminal case was pending Smt. Basanti filed an application that the matter has been compromised between t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »