Rajasthan Court January 1990 Judgments

Ram Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)68

M.B. Sharma, J.1. In this revision petition, the learned Counsel has not assailed the judgment dated 19th September, 1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur and the only prayer made is that each of the accused petitioner has been convicted Under Sections 147 and 332, IPC and they are such offences which could be dealt with under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act). Even otherwise they are such offences in which a sentence of fine could only be inflicted and the accused petitioner has already undergone 10 days imprisonment.2. Apart from what has been stated earlier that the conviction of each of the accused petitioner has not been challenged, there is sufficient material on record and it appears that when the officers of the Sales Tax Department had gone to recover the dues of the sales tax, in a jeep on which it was written 'Sales Tax Department', the accused petitioner and others closed their shops and then surrounded the jeep an...

Raghuveer Singh Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)481

M.B. Sharma, J.1. A limited controversy is involved in the present writ petition and is as to whether in land acquisition proceedings in respect of acquisition of land which were pending under the Rajasthan Land Aquisition Act, 1953 (for Short the State Act) on 30th day of April 1982, the day of introduction of Land Acquisition Amendment Bill in the House of People, though the award under the State Act was given before the extension of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for Short, the Central Act) to this State on September 24, 1984, the person in whom the land was vested and whose land was acquired is entitled in interest Under Section 3 of the Central Act and solatium Under Section 23(2) of the Central Act, the question is also as to whether the amount of 12% p.a. on the market value as awarded Under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Central Act is a part of compensation or interest If it forms part of compensation whether the cliamant is entitled in interest on the aforesaid amoun...

Rajendra Singh Vs. the Municipal Board

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN197

Jasraj Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order Annexure-3 dated 29-7-1989 whereby he has been suspended from service with effect from 19-7-1989 on the ground that he bas remained in custody for more than 48 hours between 15-7-1989 and 17-7-1989.2. It is alleged that a cross beating took place between the petitioner's family and one Hukmichand family, who happens to be his neighbored. As a result thereof, the petitioner's father lodged a FIR against 9 persons beating No. 184 of 1989 on 15-6-89 at about 11 P.M. Shri Hukmichand also filed a FIR against the petitioner and his other family members bearing No. 183 of 1989 at P.S. Nagore on 15 6-1989 at about 10.30 P.M. On the basis of this FIR, it is alleged that initially a case Under Section 147, 148,149, 448 and 336 IPC was registered against the petitioner and his family members and on the basis of his father's FIR, a case Under Section 147, 1...

Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)2

S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, convicting the accused appellant Under Section 307, IPC and sentencing him to three years's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. FIR in this case has been lodged by PW 1 Heeranand who has been declared hostile. Similarly all other alleged eye witnesses, namely, PW 2 Ram Chander, PW 4 Subhash Chandra, PW 6 Hansraj, PW 7 Norangrai and PW 8 Bodaldas have been declared hostile None of them has supported the prosecution story as given in the FIR. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has based his conviction solely on the evidence of PW 10 Radhey Shyam and the recovery of the pistol at the instance of the accused. It may be mentioned at the outset that the pistol was a licensed one and the licence was also in the name of the accused appellant and he had handed over the pistol along with the licence.3. I have carefully gone through the First Informatio...

Shankar Birmiwal Vs. Jaipur Development Authority and Another

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

S.K.M. Lodha, President: (1) Shankar Birmiwal has filed this complaint against the opposite-parties on 16.10.89 under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 ("the Act" herein) for various reliefs. The complainant who is a practising lawyer gave a bid on 29.7.87 in the auction of a plot which was held by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). The complainant was declared the highest bidder. He deposited the Rs. 60,619/- within time. Remaining three fourth amount was to be deposited on the confirmation of sale for which a demand note was to be issued by opposite-party No. 1. This was to be done in accordance with demand note-cum-confirmation of sale letter dated 31.7.87. The power of attorney holder submitted cheques before the Secretary for a sum of Rs. 1,81,857.25 on 29.9.87. The cheques were not accepted on the ground that part payment cannot be accepted. Thereafter an application was submitted before opposite- party No. 1 for the correction of the demand note. It...

State of Rajasthan Vs. Devi Singh and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN10

D.L. Mehta, J.1. Very important question of law has been raised by Dr. Biri Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondents. Ordinarily the sentences are suspended and some benches of this court has adopted that the accused should remain present after submission of the bail bonds, on a particular date fixed by the registry-The case is not listed before the court and even the case is not shown in the cause list. Generally, the practice is that the accused whose sentence has been suspended or who has been granted bail puts his personal appearance before the clerk and leaves the registry. He is not expected to appear in person thereafter All cases are heard in the sentence of the accused and he is represented by a counsel.2. Mr. Biri Singh raised the following question (i) Is it necessary that the accused should remain present in person before the clerk of the registry after suspension of the sentence? Is it not necessary to fix a date and to show the same in the cause list if accused pres...

State of Rajasthan Vs. Devi Sahai and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(1)WLN47

D.L. Mehta J.1. Very important question of law has been raised by Dr. Biri Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondents. Ordinarily the sentences are suspended and some benches of this Court have adopted a method that the accused should remain present after submission of the bail bonds on a particular date fixed by the registry. The case is not listed before the court and even the case is not shown in the cause list. Generally, the practice is that the accused whose sentence has been suspended or who has been granted bail puts his personal appearance before the clerk and leaves the registry. He is not expected to appear in person thereafter. All cases are heard in the absence of the accused and he is represented by a counsel.2. Mr. Biri Singh raised the allowing questions (i) is it necessary that the accused should remain present in person before the clerk of the registry after suspension of the sentence? (ii) is it not necessary to fix a date and to show the time in the cause list o...

Lalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)1

Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 3, 1989, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Sri Ganganagar, convicting the appellant Under Section 376, IPC and sentencing him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to 3 months further rigorous imprisonment.2. Counsel for the appellant does not challenge the conviction. He has submitted that in the circumstances of the present case the sentence already undergone should be treated as sufficient. Learned Counsel in this connection sumbitted that the accused is a heart-patient and requires proper medical treatment which can not be given to him in jail. He has in this connection produced the medical certificate issued by Dr. R.S. Rathore, Physician & Senior CAS, Central Jail, Bikaner. The certificate shows that the accused is is suffering from AC Myocardial infraction.3. The accused in jail since June 23, 1987, he is 52 years of age. He is not a p...