Rajasthan Court August 1989 Judgments
Bajrang Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)266
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 3/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine he has to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. This decision was confirmed in appeal No. 221/79 by the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur by order dated 2nd July, 1985. Against this the present revision petition has been filed.2. Some dates relevant for our purpose may be mentioned. 450 Grams of Ajwayan was purchased by Shri Kalyanmal Sharma on 26th August, 1976. The accused petitioner is a shop keeper. The sample collected was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and on 30th September, 1976, the Public Analyst prepared his report and found that there were live insects in large quantity in the sample. This report was sent to the Food Inspector fo...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Bhagwan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN324
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur by order dated 3-1-1983 for the offence under Section 3/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to one years R.I. and a fine of Rs 2,000/-. This conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur by order dated 10th July, 1985. Against this, the present revision petition has been preferred.2. The question which has been mainly contended in this revision petition is that several over writings have been made in the complaint, in the written report submitted for the purpose of obtaining sanction for prosecution, and other documents On basis of this, it has been contended that the correct material was not placed before the sanctioning authority for obtaining the sanction and the sanction has been given on basis of some other sample and report.3. The fact necessary for appreciating this contention may be looked into. On 22nd Septembe...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Kishan Vs. Navratan Mal JaIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj127; 1990(1)WLN217
ORDERS.N. Bhargava, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 4-5-89 passed by the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, allowing application of non-petitioner No. 1 for restoring possession of the disputed property.2. Non-petitioner No. 1 Navratan Mal Jain filed a civil suit for permanent injunction stating that he had taken the disputed property on rent from the petitioner and non petitioner No. 2 Radhey Shyam since 9th July, 1967 and that the petitioner Radha Kishan had been recovering rent from the very beginning. The petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 requested the non-petitioner No. 1 to vacate the premises within two days so that they could dispose of the property, failing which the possession will be taken forcibly and therefore, the present suit was filed for permanent injunction against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2, to restrain them from dispossessing him without due process of law.3. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunc...
Tag this Judgment!Tej Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN110
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dt 1-9-1986, where by, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:[1] Appellant Tej Singh convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-.[2] Appellant Lesingh convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-.2. Padam Singh submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station, Bhusavar on 22-9-1985 at 6 30 p.m. stating that the appellants had caused injuries by sharp edged weapon to his uncle Himmat Singh. He has alleged that there was enmity between the parties on account of land dispute. The appellants gave beating with Farsa and Darat. The condition of his uncle Himmat Singh was very serious and he was lying at the spot. This incident has been witnessed by Ram Sahai and Brijo. On this report a case under Section 307/34 IPC was registered. With the death of Himmat Singh as a result of injuries, the case was convert...
Tag this Judgment!Naina Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN535
R.S. Verma, J.1. The prosecution story, as held established by the learned trial Judge is as follows:2. Lumba Ram (deceased) and his brother Kirta Ram PW 4 are residents of village Padasala. They have two fields at Padasala, one known as Dhaniwala and the other on the outskirts of the village and at a distance of about 2 kms. from the field known as Dhaniwala. On 11-9-85, at about 4 p.m. appellant Naina Ram put his 8-10 cows in the Dhaniwala field of Kirta Ram and Lumba Ram. At that time, there was a crop of 'Bajari' and 'Moth' in the aforesaid field. The cows of Naina Ram grazed the standing c op and caused quite some damage to the same. Upon this, Kirta Ram and Lumba Ram who happened to be there, took the cows out of the field and proceeded to take them to the village cattle pound. On the way to the cattle pound, Jay their second field on the outskirts of the village. When these two persons reached this second field with the cattle of Naina Ram, they were all of a sudden accosted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop and ors. Vs. Bholu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Raj56; 1989(2)WLN661
M.C. Jain, Actg. C.J. 1. Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide his order dated 10-4-89 has referred the following question to be decided by a larger Bench:'Whether the provisions of Order 19, C.P.C. apply for deciding an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, C.P.C.?'2. The learned Chief Justice noticed conflict between a single Bench decision of this Court in Kusum Kumar Choudhary v. Supra Films (1971 RLW 282) and the single Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ali Bin Aifan (AIR 1983 AP 114) in which reference was made to some other decisions and the learned Chief Justice also made reference to a Division Bench decision in Kanihyalal v. Meghraj (AIR 1954 Nag 260). In the Andhra Pradesh decision it was held that Order 19, C.P.C. is applicable for deciding the application under Order 39, C.P.C. and in the Nagpur Division Bench decision the expression 'any application' in Order 19, Rule 2, C.P.C. was held to mean 'any application' under the Code since the C...
Tag this Judgment!Bhag Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN568
G.K. SHARMA, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. PC has been preferred against the order 3rd May, 1988, by which, the Judicial Magistrate, Bansur, directed to sell the crop, which was with the petitioner on 'Superdginama', and further directed to deposit the sale-proceeds of the crop in the court.2. For the disposal of this petition, it is necessary to mention here the brief facts of this case. A civil dispute between the parties is pending with regard to Khasra Nos. 222 & 222/1107, situated in Village--Harsora, A complaint was lodged under Section 145 Cr. PC by the SHO, PS--Bansur, on 27th Sept., 1985, before the SDM, Behror with the prayer that there was likelihood of breach of peace between the parties with regard to possession over the aforesaid Khasras and therefore the said land be attached. The learned SDM, vide his order dated 28th Dec. 1985, directed the Tehsildar--Bansur, to attach the aforesaid Khasras and Khasra No. 222/1106. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Sardara Vs. Satyanarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1989
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)286
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 230 Tenancy Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as the Act) against the order dated 29-7-1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner in Appeal No. 113/86 pending before him, where by he rejected petitioner's application dated 3-6-1987 and confirmed the temporary injunction dated 31-10 1986 restraining them from interferring in the cultivatory possession of the plaintiff-non-petitioner on the disputed land and from doing any other act which may adversely affect his rights thereon, till the disposal of the appeal.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the plaintiff-non petitioner Satyanarain filed a suit for partition case Agriculture holdings, declaration and perpetuals injunction under Sections 53, 88 and 188 of the Act against the petitioners and non-petitioners 2 to 13 and the State of Rajasthan in the court of the SDO, Bikaner (North), with the averments that the disputed land described in ...
Tag this Judgment!Johannes Philipus Vadde Venee Dijk Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj124; I(1991)DMC375; 1990(1)WLN198
Israni, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in the matter of appointment of guardian of the person of female minor Babita an inmate of Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah (founding home) conducted by Rajasthan Social Welfare Department of Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The application filed by the appellant for appointment as guardian of the above mentioned minor child was dismissed by the Family Court vide its judgment dated August 12, 1986.2. It will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that the Inter-country Adoption Agency 'Juthika' (hereinafter called as 'Juthika') of Netherland, which is one of the recognised agency of Government of India, approached the Director of Social Welfare Department and Superintendent, Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur through its power of attorney holder to give minor Babita, a destitute child in Guardianship of the petitioner. The Director, Social Welfare Department gave permission for adoption ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)34
G.K. Sharma, J.1. The miscellaneous petition is preferred against the order dated July 19, 1989, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for handing over the vehicle to him, which has been retained by the Transport Authorities.2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle No. RST-1635 (a jeep). This vehicle was checked by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, and the registration-certificate, permit, insurance-certificate and the token of taxes were not found kept in the vehicle. So the vehicle was seized; and on 19th July, 1989, a complaint with regard to these deficiencies, was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khetri. The very day when the complaint was filed, the petitioner moved an application for handing over the vehicle to him on 'Supardginama', as the alleged offences were of technical nature. The learned Magistrate did not agree with the petitioner and observed in his order that according to Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »