Rajasthan Court February 1990 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.
Mohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ449; 1990(1)WLN119
I.S. Israni, J.1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated June 16, 1982, passed by learned Special Judge, A.C.D. Jaipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 24/1979, by which the accused appellant was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 161 I.P.C. and also to a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to under further simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, the accused appellant has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo three months further simple imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. !2. It will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that on November 9, 1978, complainant Vishambhar Dayal resident of village Borni, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, district Alwar, lodged a report at Police Stat...
Vijay Singh Vs. Dinesh Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN5
Sobhagmal Jain, J.1. Dinesh Chandra, respondent here in, claiming himself to be a tenant of the defendant Vijay Singh, appellant here in, filed a suit in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, (South), Udaipur, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, from interfering with the plantiff in the shop situate in 16 Bhamashah Marg The defendants have described it as a garage. On August 3, 1988, the plaintiff also filed an application for temporay injunction. By the order dated August 4, 1988, the Munsif appointed a Commissioner to inspect the site and also directed status quo to be maintained. The defendant filed a reply to the application for interim injuction. After hearing both the parties and taking into account the affidavits and the report of the Commissioner, the Munsif, by the order dated Dec. 8, 1988, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from inteiferring with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit shop. Against this,...
Dinesh Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN159
S.M. Jain, J.1. This revision has been filed by Dinesh Chander again-at the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur City, Udaipur, dated August 17, 1988 directing attachment of the shop (Garrage) situate at 16 Bhamashah Marg, Udaipur, and appointing the Station House Officer, Udaipur, as its receiver.2. Dinesh Chander claims to be the tenant of the shop and urges that Vijay Singh wants to evict him unlawfully from the said shop. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, maintains that Dinesh Chander is a trespasser and has forcibly occupied the garrage. Finding that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties the Station House Officer on July 22, 1988, filed a complaint Under Section 17, 116 & 145 Cr. PC in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur City, Udaipur. A preliminary order was drawn on July 23, 1988. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate by the order dated August 17, 1988, directed that the property be attached and appointed the Station Hou...
Gopi Chand and anr. Vs. Satyanarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Raj143
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner who is present himself in the court.2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10-7-87 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur.3. It is necessary to narrate some facts of the case for the proper appreciation of law.4. Plaintiff instituted a suit against the tenant on the grounds mentioned in Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. During the pendency of the suit Section 13A of the Act was inserted for the benefit of the tenants.Clause (b) of Section 13A reads as under:--'In every such proceeding, the Court shall, on the application of the tenant made within 30 days from the date of commencement of the (amending ordinance) notwithstanding an order to the contrary, determine the amount of rent in arrears up to the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at 6% per annum and costs of the suit allowable ...
Manindra Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1392
ORDERV.S. Dave, J.1. This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that case pending before the Court below may kindly be transferred to any Court of competent jurisdiction in any of the Districts of Rajasthan. The case referred to in the prayer of which transfer has been prayed is a Criminal Appeal No. 13/89, Maninder Kumar v. State of Rajasthan pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur for an offence under Section 325/34, I.P.C.2. The petitioner in his petition stated that his appeal was listed for arguments along with the connected appeal filed by Ravindar Kumar on 24-6-89. An application for exemption was moved by co-accused Bhagwat Swaroop, Ravindar Kumar and the petitioner Manindar Kumar. The application of Bhagwat Swaroop was allowed, bailable warrants were issued against Ravindar Kumar but warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and his bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited by the learned Appellate Judge, namely, Shri Brij Lal Bundel, Sess...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)86
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In assessing the judgment dated 4-8-1988 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has put in the fore front an argument that at the time when the offence was committed, though the accused petitioner was the owner of the Firm M/s Ashok Kumar and Company but he was a minor aged about 14 years and in fact his father Gordhan Lal was looking after the business of the firm. He contends that because the accused at the time of the offence had not reached the age of 16 years he could have only been tried by the children's court under the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act'). Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that though no objection was taken before the trial court, it was still the duty of the trial court also to see as to what was the age of the accused and whether he should be tried by that court or by the Children Court under the provisions of the Act.2. It will appear from the perusal of the complaint which...
Rahim Bux Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)43
R.S. Verma, J.1. Rahim Bux has been convicted for an offence Under Section 302 I.P.C. by the learned. Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, vide his judgment date 06-10-89 and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved, he has come in appeal.2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The case of the prosecution is that PW 1 Kamaruddin and appellant Rahim Bux are neighbours and their houses are situated at a distance of about 300' from each other. Kamaruddin bad three sons, namely, PW 4 Amaruddin, one Fakhruddin and Rahim Bux@Pappu. It is said that Rahim Bux's brother Fakhruddin was having some sort of illicit relations with Miss Bhuri daughter of appellant Rahim Bux. Naturally Rahim Bux was annoyed with this and on 15-8-88 at about 7 p.m., Rahim Bux went to the house of PW 1 Kamaruddin at Dadabadi, Bhilwara, to remonstrate Kamaruddin on this account. He had some loud verbal al...
Amba Lal Sadhu Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN288
I.S. Israni, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. It is pointed out by Shri S. K. Keshote, learned Counsel that the petitioner is substantive LDC and appeared before RPSC for selection of Junior Accountant in the year 1979, 1981 and 1983 but was not successful. The selections are made 100% by direct recruitment. In the year 1985 Proviso (iii) was added to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 but which 12-1/2% i.e. 63 seats of Junior Accountants were kept reserved for those who were working in substantive capacity in Ministerial Cadre. It is submitted that vide Ex. 1 in the year 1986 application were invited for recruitment to 500 seats of Junior Accountants out of which at the ratio of 12-1/2% i.e. 63 seats were kept reserved for substantive ministerial staff cadre employees. The petitioner appeared in the examination in 1986 and as per result he has obtained 51% marks. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that from the reserved category those ...
Sujana Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN642
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge Jalore dated 4th November, 1979 were the learned Judge has convicted the accused appellant Under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Likewise Under Section 326 IPC he has also been convicted and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to Further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 324 IPC he has been convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 14th June, 1979 a written report was filed at the Police Station Sanchore in the early morning at 4 A.M. by Akba stating therein that on the previous night his son Chatra was steeping at his well, one Champa son of Jawa Rebari was also sleeping nearby him on t...
Jai Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN88
R.S. Verma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Shri Gyan Prakash Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, dated 27-10-1986. In all, 11 persons including the present ten appellants, namely, Jai Singh, Ram Swaroop, Amar Chand, Kashi Ram, Daula Ram alias Dalo Singh, Dariya Singh, Inder Singh, Hardeva Ram, Fateh Singh and Bhadar were put up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercising jurisdiction within Sessions Division, Sri Ganganagar, for various offences in respect of an incident said to have taken place in the fore noon of 15-9-1984 on the outskirt of village Sardarpura Bas near or about the Khala in the field of one Poorna Ram Kanvasara in which PW 1 Smt. Vimla and PW 5 Smt. Santaro were injured and Smt. Vimla's brother and Smt. Santaro's brother-in-law Om Prakash end Mange Ram, as also one of their relatives Budh Ram were killed by use of fire arms. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted co-accused Ram Singh of all the charges levell...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »