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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Dilshad and Aslam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN259
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Dilshad and Aslam have, by the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur dated December 23, 1981, been acquitted of the charges Under Sections 366 and 368, IPC in relation to Dilshad, and Under Sections 366 and 376, IPC in relation to Aslam.2. The victim of the alleged abduction and rape was Kumari Santosh daughter of Tehlaram (PW/12), resident of Alavada, tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. She was virgin fairly built and well nourished lady aged about 20 years but below 24 years Jai Prakash (PW/8) was resident of Tuglak Bag Extensions, Block No. RZ, House No. 63A, Delhi. Kumari Santosh came from a poor family. She had a younger sister named Nirmala who was aged about 12 years at the time of the incident. Kumari Santosh used to live with Jaiprakash at Delhi. As she came from a poor family, her maternal uncle got her employed in a factory carrying on business in ready-made garments. Aslam respondent was also working in the factory. Sripal, (PW/3) was the proprietor of ...
Beerbal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)69
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not advanced any arguments on the merits of the case. The question is whether taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 1977 almost about 12 years ago and there is no material on record about any previous conviction or bad antecedents of each of the accused-petitioner, the accused-petitioners should be extended benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act Under Section 4. It appears from the perusal of the statement of each of the accused-petitioner Under Section 313 Cr. PC on 6th September, 1986 i.e. after almost about 9 years of the occurrence that the age of the accused-petitioner Birbal was given as 27 years and that of Gyarsi was given as 26 years. It means that each of the accused-petitioner was below 21 years of age at the time of occurrence. So far us accused-petitioners Birbal and Gyarsi are concerned their age was not mentioned in their arrest memo. Only in the case of accused Bhagi...
Moti Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR358(Raj)
1. This is an application under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act by which the assessee has raised the following questions :-- '(i) Whether the income having been taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries, it can be taxed again in the hands of the assessee-trust (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application concerning the question, to be a legal one but assuming that the same point was decided earlier (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer is justified in charging tax from the appellant, upholding the fact that the income from the appellant-trust was separately taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries in their individual status (iv) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application assuming the question to be a legal one but the same point was decided earlier though the special le...
Darshan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)39
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated Sept. 27, 1989 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to 6 months RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to under go two month's RI by the passed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar, by the judgment dated Dec. 8, 1987, and remanding the case to the trial Court for fresh trial.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this revision is that the order directing the trial Magistrate to try the accused now is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The case is more than 6 years old. It was on April 27, 1983, that Shri Chiranjilal, Food Inspector, Sri Ganganagar, took sample of Balushai from the shop of the accused. The sample was sent for chemical examination to the Public Analyst, Sri Ganganagar, who found it to be adulterated as it c...
Noratmal Vs. Smt. Sobhag Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)473
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (East), Ajmer, dated 11.8.89, in the case relating to eviction of a tenant on the ground of default and other grounds under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act').2. In order to elucidate to controversy it is necessary to narrate some facts.3. Plaintiff-non petitioners instituted a suit against the defendant-petitioner on the ground of sub-letting and substantial damages. Druing the tendency of the suit and before the amendment of the suit present-petitioner tenant submitted a suit against the present plaintiff for the fixation of the standard rent.4. After the institution of the suit by the present petitioner Under Section-6 of the Act of 1950, present non- petitioners landlord amended the suit and added one ground that the defendant has committed default in the payment of rent as such...
Babulal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)290
M.B. Sharma, J.1. As shall be presently ahown that the written consent Ex. P.8 Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short P.F. Act) cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, therefore, no cognizence of the offence Under Section 7/16 of the P.F. Act could have taken by the learned court and the revision petition, therefore, on such point only deserves to be allowed.2. Shri Hari Dutt Sharma was the Food Inspector on 23rd October 1978. The accused petitioner has a Kirana shop near Jamamaszid Bharatpur and the food inspector went to the shop of the accused petitioner and purchased 'Heeng' for the purpose of analysis as he suspected the same to be adulterated. The sample was purchased and it was divided into three equel parts and each part was filled in three clean dry phials and each sample was corcked, srapped and sealed. One sample was given by hand by the food inspector to the Chief Public Analyst and it reached in his office on 24th October 1978...
Marble Vyapar Sangathan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC282(Raj); 1990(1)WLN375
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the notification (annexure 2) dated January 12, 1990, by which annexure 3 has been amended and has also prayed for certain consequential reliefs.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr, Rajesh Balia, appearing for the respondents at some length.2. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by this notification, the members of the petitioner-Sangathan, who are registered dealers, have been converted into casual dealers and they have been subjected to pay tax at the time of every transaction, they enter into for sale of their commodities. They are dealers in marble. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no nexus between the alleged prevention of evasion of tax and the notification issued. Certain other arguments have also been raised by him and I shall refer to them a little later.3. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned co...
Smt. Pushpa Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)63
N.C. Sharma, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City by his judgment dated September 14, 1982 acquitted the appellant in respect of offence under Sections 366 and 376, IPC, but convicted her for the offence Under Section 363, IPC, and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. On going through the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, it would appear that in order to hold the charge for offence Under Section 363, IPC as proved against the appellant, he has solely placed reliance on the statement of the girl Mst. Anguri and in her solitory statement, be has come to the 'conclusion that Mst. Anguri was kidnapped by the appellant from the lawful guardianship of her parents.3. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City completely lost sight of the contents of the First Information Report which had been lodged by Sukha (P/Wl), father of the girl. The report was lodged after five days of Mst. Anguri's becoming untraceable. It has...
Har Sahal and Lallu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN579
N.C. Sharma, J.1. By his judgment dated October 6, 1982, Addl. Sessions Judge No 2, Alwar has convicted the appellant Har Sahai for offence Under Sections 307 and 325, IPC and Lallu appellant for offence Under Section 325/34, IPC, Sections 324 and 323, IPC. The former has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 1,00/- for offence Under Section 307, IPC and to six months rigorous imprisonment Under Section 325, IPC. So far as Lallu appellant is concerned, he had been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, for offence Under Section 325/34 IPC, to one year's rigorous imprisonment Under Section 324, IPC and three month's rigorous imprisonment Under Section 323, IPC. The sentences awarded to both the appellants have been made to run concurrently.2. The injured in this case are--Prabhati Lal PW 3 Ram Kishore PW 4 and Prahlad PW 7 PrabhatiLal and Prahlad are real brothers while Ram Kishore was cousin of these two persons. The inc...
Sultania Kanjar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN113
By The Court1. This criminal appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-1-1980 of the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar where by appellant, Sultania has been convicted for the offence Under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4th April, 1979 at about 8 a.m. an oral report was lodged by Ram Singh to Hari Singh Solanki, Station House Officer of Camp Kali Talai with the assertions that, on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th April; 1979, Narsingh Lal Dangi PW9 informed the villagers that some body has broken into his house; thereupon, the villagers who were reciting sacred songs in the praise of God in the mid-night, went to the house of Narsingh Lal but nobody was found there, so all returned back to their respective house; that, how ever, after a few seconds, Madan. Singh heard hue and cry from northern side of the village and he armed with 'Jeli' went towards that side duly followed by Bajrang and Moti; and that, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »