Rajasthan Court September 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.
Narendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN389
N.C. Kochar, J.1. Narendra Singh, Girraj, Nanva and Ram Murti (the appellants) were prosecuted in case FIR No. 120 dated 13-11-1976 of the Police Station, Roopwas, District Bharatpur and were tried by Shri Dharam Chand Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, who vide judgment dated 31st August, 1981 convicted appellants Narendra Singh, Nanva and Ram Murti Under Sections 452, 323 and 342, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- on each count. The fourth appellant Girraj was convicted Under Sections 452, 342 and 325, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on first two counts and for a period of one year Under Section 325, IPC, besides paying a sum of Rs. 250/- as fine on each count. The prosecution story was as under;2. Appellant Narendra owed some money to PW 2 Maniram. At the instance of appellant Narendra, Maniram had also advanced some amount to appellant Girraj....
Atar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN572
N.C. Kochar, J.1. The police has filed the challan. Along with the challan police has filed the copies of statements of 4 witnesses namely Gyan-chand, Bhagwani Bai. Tulsibai & Shantilal recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. PC during investigation. Those witnesses do not support the prosecution story and the only evidence against the applicant is the dying declaration made by the deceased before the learned SDM and in presence of the Medical Officer. The learned trial court will give proper weight to the dying declaration but in view of the statements relied upon by the prosecution itself and mentioned above, in my view, it is a fit case where the applicant should be released on bail and consequently, I direct that the applicant should be released on bail subject to his furnishing a bond is the same of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. District Judge, Kishangarh Bas....
Bhaiya Ram and Asuram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN701
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a misc. petition against the order dated August 8, 1989 of the learned Judicial Magistrate Sumerpur. Under the aforesaid order the learned Magistrate ordered framing of charges against accused-petitioner Under Section 406 of the IPC.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner is that even from the perusal of the complaint which was send Under Section 154(3) Cr. P.C. to the SHO and one case was registered and investigation was undertaken and thereafter a chargesheet was filed, be case Under Section 406, IPC can be made out against the accused-petitioner. The I.O., after investigation, had filed a charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner and two others Under Section 420 and 379 IPC but the learned Magistrate, in the impugned order came to the conclusion that so far as the accused petitioner is concerned, no offence Under Section 420 and 379 IPC is made out and prima facie a case Under Section 406 IPC is made out. The learned Magistrate...
Banshi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN457
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated January 30, 1988, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (4), Jaipur City, Jaipur convicted the accused Banshi under Section 302, IPC on a charge of uxoricide and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The accused has come up in appeal and challenges his conviction.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Smt. Vimla aged about 25 years at the time of her death was the daughter of PW 10 Jetha Ram she was married with the accused 12 or 13 years ago. The accused did not treat her kindly and used to beat her off and on. She gave birth to three female and one male children from the accused PW 2 Basanti is the eldest of the children. Due to the ill-treatment of the accused, Vimla left her husband's roof and came to live with her parents in Adarsh Nagar, Shanti Marg, Jaipur with her children. The accused approached Jetha Ram PW 10 and asked hi...
Firm Mohan Lal Ram Swaroop Vs. Rajkumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj44; 1990(1)WLN221
M.C. Jain, Actg. C.J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Sikar dated 25-7-86 whereby the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class. Sikar dated 1-5-84. The learned Additional Munsif rejected the plaintiff-respondent's application dated 4-2-84 under Section 13(5) of the 'Rajasthan. Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for striking out the defence. A few facts may briefly be noted.2. The trial Court determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) on 29-3-1978. The order reads as under:--^^Qjhdsu odhy mifLFkr A njizfroknh x.k fnukad 16&1&78 ij lquh xbZ A /kkjk 133 izsfelst ,DV dsrgr oknhx.k dk fdjk;k izfroknhx.k dh vksj :i;s 760@&31 ekpZ] 1978 rd cdk;kgS tks fudyrs gS] tks izfroknhx.k 15 fnu ds vUnj tek djk;saxs A ;fn izfroknhx.kus dksbZ fdjk;k 19, izkekbt ,DV ds rgr vnkyr gktk es tek djk;k gS rks dqycdk;k fdjk;k esa ls 'ks'k fdjk;k...
Dhanna Ram Vs. Smt. Poona
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)356
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate, Anupgarh, under his order dated August 6, 1986 ordered payment of Rs. 150/- per month to the non-petitioner by the petitioner her husband.2. Two revision petitions were filed before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, one by the petitioner herein and the other by the non-petitioner. The first was for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate and one was for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge under his judgment dated December 9, 1987 dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. But allowed the revision of the non-petitioner enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- per month, so far as the non-petitioner is concerned. It is the petitioner who has challenged the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.3. I have the heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner had more than 20 Bighas of irri...
Jagannath Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN374
M.B. Sharma, J.1. I am really surprised to go through the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. In his order dated June 14, 1980, which has been made in a criminal revision petition, the learned Addl. Sessions, Judge has not only allowed the revision petition but has also taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 147 & 506 IPC, against the petitioners. It shows a lack of knowledge of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and it is because no attempt appears to have been made by him to go through Section 398 of Cr.PC. The golden rule is that as and when necessity arises of going through any provisions of law, one should go through it. Though a court might have gone through that provision complete times, it must again go through it and any departure from this golden rule is likely to result in commission of a blunder, which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has committed. It is expected from Officers of the cadre of Addl. Sessions Judge that the basic principles of law...
Gajanand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN391
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th & 19th July, 1980, passed by the Special Judge, ACD Cases Jaipur, by which the appellant was found guilty of offence under Section 5(1)(d)(2) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 month's simple imprisonment; and under Section 161, IPC to 6 month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default thereof to undergo 3 month's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were, how ever, ordered to run concurrently.2. Tarachand Jain submitted a report on 14th October, 1977 before the SP, ACD, Jaipur alleging that he was working in the Roadways Department. He had to take a copy of the order of temporary injunction, in the case order of temporary injunction in the case of Tarachand v. Kalu Ram which was pending in the court of AMJM No. 1...
The Jodhpur Central Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. Naim Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR799]; (1990)IILLJ307Raj; 1989(2)WLN694; 1990(1)WLN624
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the award given by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated September 22, 1986 may be quashed.2. Petitioner the Jodhpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., has filed this writ petition and submitted that the respondent, their employee Nairn Singh filed a claim application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1936) and claimed the over-time wages for working on the days which were declared as holidays under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is alleged that the declared holidays are June 30, 1984, December 31, 1984, June 29, 1985 and December 31, 1985. But the Authority disallowed the claim of the petitioner with regard to the over time claimed for working on June 30, 1984 being barred by time. An objection was also raised regarding the jurisdiction of the authorityfor entertaining such application. However, the authority allowed petitioner...
Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN78
S.S. Byas, J.1. Ram Chandra and his son Balraj who are appellants before us, were convicted Under Section 302/34, IPC and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu by his judgment dated October 16, 1987 They have come up in appeal and challenge their conviction.2. The victim in the case is Smt. Krishna born on 1-7-1969. She was the wife of the appellant Balraj PW 2 Om Prakash and PW 12 Mst Pana are the parents, PW 1 Dharamveer Singh is the brother and PW 15 Smt Vidhya is the sister of the victim. The prosecution case may briefly be summarised as under:3. The marriage between Krishna and the appellant Balraj was solemnized on 26-5-1984 in Dhani Sheoran Tan Dev Road, P.S. Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. After marriage Krishna went to live with her husband and in-laws in Jhunjhunu. Thereafter she visited her parents' house off and on. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »