Rajasthan Court January 1990 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Vs. State

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN370

M.B. Sharma, J.1. The accused petitioner was convicted by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') under the judgment dated 30th December, 1981 and was sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment. He preferred an appeal against the aforesaid conviction and the learned Sessions Judge No. 2 under his judgment dated 12th December 1984 dismissed the appeal.2. It was on 16th of August, 1979 at about 2.20 p.m. that the Food Inspector B.K. Chaturvedi P.W. 1 visited the shop of the accused-petitioner and saw that on the shop accused-petitioner was present and was selling groundnut-oil as well as Tara Meera Oil. The said two oils were kept in two separate drums. He suspected Tara Meera oil to be adulterated and purchased 375 grams of oil and paid Rs. 3.37. It was ...

Ashok Kumar Pareek Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)487

I.S. Israni, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in which it has been prayed that the impugned order dated 8-3-1989 by which the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Class IV Servant instead of L.D.C. may be quashed and non-petitioners be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. w.e.f. 8-3-1989.2. It will suffice for the purposes of this petition to state that father of the petitioner was working in Office of Deputy Chief Medical & Health Department, Jaipur as 'Tikkakar' and he died during his tenure of service on 9-5-76. It is pleaded in the petition that post of 'Tikkakar' is now designated as M.P.W. in Medical & Health Department and was getting pay in the scale of L.D.C. and, therefore, the petitioner should have been given appointment as L.D.C. or on any other post which is not lower than the post of L.D.C. He sent an application on September 26, 1988 to the Director, Medical & Health Department for giving appointment on his attaining m...

State of Rajasthan Vs. Mishri Lal and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(1)WLN43

N.C. Sharma J.1. The provisions of the Essentital Commodities Act and those contained in various orders issued under that Act as well as the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act have been enacted for a high social purpose. Enforcement Officers and Food Inspectors owe a duty to the common man to see that there is no black-marketing, no fraud on consumers' interest and no adulteration. Implementation of these enactments to ensure the achievement of these objectives, apart from moral obligation, is the statutory obligation of the officers empowered to administer and enforce these enactments.2. It daily comes to notice that these Enforcement Officers and Food Inspectors never lay their hands on big economic houses or wholesellers. They only take opporunity to catch petty milk-sellers going on a cycle or catch hold of technical flaws and file complaints for some minor offences simply in order to show statistics to their higher-ups to satisfy them that they bad filed complaints ...

Sri Chand Vs. Brij Bhushan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN6

N.C. Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Srichand Under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg dated April 29, 1982, where by seven respondents were acquitted by him of charges Under Section 147, 148, 452, 323/149, 307 and 307/149, IPC.2. The prosecution case was that on March 20, 1980, complainant lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Sikari. In this report, it was mentioned by Srichand that when he came back to his house in village Kurkin from another village Sukheti, he found that his aunt Smt. Keshar PW/3 was lying unconscious and his son Vinesh and Rajendra were lying injured. He inquired from them about the cause of injuries and thereupon Ramjilal and Prem told him that at about noon, the The seven respondent came armed with country-gun, lathis and stones and entered into the house of Srichand. They inquired about Srichand and Smt. Keshar and the above mentioned two sons told them that the complai...

Nanga and Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(1)WLN41

N.C. Sharma, J.1. Appellants Shankar and Nanga, by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa dated August 27, 1982, have been found guilty for offence Under Section 363, IPC and they have respectively been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for three months and also with a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both of them have come in appeal to this Court. Smt. Bheri (PW/1) wife of Panchu (PW/2) is alleged to have been taken or enticed by the appellants out of keeping of the lawful guardianshinp of Panchu without his consent. Bheri (PW/1) herself narrates her taking away or being enticed by the appellants out of keeping of her husband. Unfortunately, Panchu (PW/2) husband of Bheri is a blind person and is hard of hearing as well. Bheri was married, to Panchu near about the year 1976. As to the age of Bheri on the date of the incident, X-ray was conducted of wrist, elbow and ...

Kashmiri Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(1)WLN501

M.B. Sharma, J.1. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar convicted the accused petitioner Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the P.P. Act) and sentenced him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. The accused petitioner filed an sppeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence before the learned Additionel Sessions Judge and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Under his judgment dated 23rd July, 1985 partly allowed the appeal. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner as aforesaid sentenced the accused petitioner to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months simple imprisonment.2. The facts of the case are contained in detail in the judgments of the courts below and need not be given here and suffice to say that th...

M/S. Vasundhra and Another Vs. Bal Kishan Goyal

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

S.K.M. Lodha, President: (1) This appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) ("the Act" herein) is directed against the order dated 11.9.89 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in complaint case No. 69 of 1989. (2) The complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Act regarding supply of defective water cooler 36-P 100 Model Blue Star, which was purchased vide Bill No. 497 dated 25.2.88 from opposite-party No. 1 appellant. The price mentioned in the bill is Rs. 23,900 for the water cooler and Rs. 1,950/- for the voltage stabilizer. The water cooler is said to have been installed at Platform No. 2. Sindhi Camp Bus Stand by the mechanics of the Company. It stopped working on 6.4.1988. A report of its poor performance was lodged with the Company on 9.4.88. No action was taken and so a reminder was sent on 26.4.88. Again, a complaint was lodged on 4.7.88 stating that the exhaust fan of the cooler was not working. It was repeated on 12.7.8...

Niranjanlal Vs. Bank of Baroda, Jaipur and Another

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

S.K.M. Lodha, President: (1) This is a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant against the opposite-parties ("the Bank" herein) on 17.10.89. (2) We may briefly notice the facts stated in the complaint: The complainant has stated that he passed B . E. in 1973 from Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur. Thereafter, from 26.12.73 to 25.2.74 he received industrial training from Rajasthan Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation, Jaipur and upto 1978, he helped his father in the business of manufacturing soaps. The complainant submitted an application to the Bank for establishing small scale industry in the name of M/s. Mehra Bricks Industries, for the grant of loan under "Unemployed Svayam Rojgar Scheme". The Bank sanctioned the loan on 17.1.79 and in the acceptance letter, it was written that the "Branch should obtain certificate from the Collector about the conversion of the land from agricu...

Narendra Nath Govil Vs. Naresh Chand Goyal

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1992Raj126

ORDERN.C. Sharma, J.1. This order will decide Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1019/1989 and 1020/ 1989, by this common order.2. The plaintiff non-petitioner had filed a suit for ejectment and injunction against the petitioner tenant. Issues were framed in the suit on August 1, 1984. The evidence of the plaintiff had also been completed. Five witnesses of the defendant also stood examined. However, cross-examination of the petitioner could not be completed on account of his illness. On May 3, 1989 the petitioner had filed an application supported by an affidavit under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the written statement. By this proposed amendment, the petitioner wanted to insert the alleged subsequent events tending to show that the plaintiff-non-petitioner did not require the demised premises reasonably and bona fide for his use and occupation. That amendment application was dismissed by the trial Court on June 1, 1989. Against that, the petitioner filed a revision petition bear...

Kailash and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN34

D.L. Mehta, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the same judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota dated 1st October, 1982, in sessions case No 31/1082. by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused appellant Kailash, for the offence Under Section 304, Part-11, IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years, rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused-appellant Kailash, will further suffer 6 months simple imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, also convicted accused Kailash for the offence Under Section 331 read with Section 35, IPC and sentence him to under 6 months RI and a fine of Rs. 250/, in default of payment of fine accused Kailash will have to charge two month's simple imprisonment.2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, also convicted accused appellants namely Satyendra and Yogendra, for the offence Under Section 304, Part-II read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to un...