Rajasthan Court March 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.
inder Singh Alias Thunia Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN24
R.S. Verma, J.1. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh exercising jurisdiction in Sessions Division. Sriganganagar, has convicted accused-appellants Inder Singh alias Thunia Singh & Nahar Singh for offences Under Sections 302 read with 34, IPC and 450 IPC. On the first count, he has sentenced each one of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. On the second count, each of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each end in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Both the substantive santence have been ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved Inder Singh has filed D.B Criminal Jail Appeal No. 367/85 while Nahar Singh has filed D B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 368/85. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, they have been heard together and are bein...
Khomchand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN638
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th September, 1979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, by which appellants were held guilty and sentenced as under:1. Khomchand 1. Under Section 147, IPC, 6 months R.I. and Fine of Rs 50/-;2. Under Section 148, IPC, 3 months R.I. and Pine of Rs. 50/-;3. Under Section 307, read with 149, 1 year's R.I. and Fine of Rs. 50/-;4. Under Section 323 read with 149, 1 month' R.I. and Fins of Rs. 50/-2. Bhanji 1. Under Section 147, IPC, 6 month's R.I. and Fine of Rs. 50/-;2. Under Section 307 r/w 149, IPC, 1 year RI and Fine of Rs. 50/-;3. Under Section 323 IPC, 1 month R.I. and Fine of Rs. 50/-;4. Under Section 324 r/w 149, IPC, 3 month's R.I and Fine of 50/-.(3) Roops 1. Under Section 307. IPC, 2 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 50/-;2. Under Section 147, IPC, 6 months' R.I. and fine of Rs. 50/-;3. Under Section 148, IPC, 3 months' R.I. and fine of Rs. 50/-;4. Under Section 323 r/w 149, IPC, 1 month's R I. and fine ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Raj96; 1990(1)WLN368
ORDER1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the notices and orders Anx. 1, Anx. 2, Anx. 3 and Anx. 4 whereby demand in respect of motor vehicles tax was raised against the petitioner and in respect of one of the vehicles of the petitioner bearing registration No. RSN 8024 a sum of Rupees 31,715 / - was paid. The petitioner claims that the said amount be refunded alongwith interest thereon and it is also prayed that the non-petitioner be restrained from realising any tax for the petitioners' vehicles. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner Union of India and its Northern Railway own the vehicles for its use. This property belongs to Union of India and is exempted from all state taxes under Article 285 of the Constitution and the State has no authority to levy and realise any tax on the property of Union of India. Article 285 of the Constitution reads as under:--'285(1) The property of the Union shall, save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide, be ex...
Dhire Alias Dhruvendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN146
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur declined to accept the application filed on behalf of the accused petitioner under the Juvenile Act, 1986, (for short 'the Act'), that as the accused petitioner had attained the age of 16 years at the time occurrence or even at the time of the application was tiled and the learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction and the case should be tried only by the juvenile court establish ed under the Act The learned Session judge had dismissed the application under his order dated 20-11-1989.2. It was contended' by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that sufficient documentary proof had been furnished to the learned 'Sessions Judge that the date of birth of the accused petitioner is 31-12-197 3and as such on the day of the occurrence i.e. 16-12-1989 he bad not even attained the i.e of 16 years and had not even attained that age on the date when the application was filed, but the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application.3. It is ...
Bheru Vs. Chhoga and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN408
M.C. Jain, Actg, C.J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated July 21, 1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh, whereby he allowed the Plaintiffs' appeal against the order of the Munsiff date 9.3.87 whereby the learned Munsiff rejected the plaintiffs application under Order 39 1 and Rules 2 C.P.C.2. The dispute relates to the plaintiffs' right of way fields Nos. 31, 32,33,35,36, 37 and 39 to their field No. 11. The plaintiffs claim a right to this filed which they had purchased. The trial court found no prima facie case norany balance of convenience or irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiffs so the plaintiffs' application for grant of temporary injunction was rejected. However, the first appellate court found that there exists a prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiffs.3. I need not enter into the merits of the prima facie case of the plaintiffs. What is material for the right decision of the application for grant of temporary injunction is as t...
Smt. Premvati Vs. State Committee Under Essential Commodities (Special ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN607
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order dated April 21, 1989 of a Committee constituted Under Section 6(c) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (for short, Special Provisions Act), made in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated January 28, 1986; passed by the Collector, and District Magistrate, Bharatpur Under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, EC Act). The revision petition arises in the following circumstances.2. M/s Prem Industries and Oil Mills Bharatpur is manufacturer of Oil. It is. a partnership concern of which Smt. Premvati and four other are partners. On January 6, 1978, Enforcement Inspector Bharatpur inspected the mill premises of the firm and found various irregularities and it was noticed that in the price list and stock list which was exhibited 704 tins of ground-nut oil and 2025 bags of ground-nuts were shown. On physical verification it was found that there were 705 tins of gr...
Amra Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN222
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 20th December 1989 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar. Under the aforesaid judgment the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner against his conviction and sentence Under Section 16/54 (a)(c)(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short the Act) and was sentenced to undergo six months R.I and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in defeult of payment of fine to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment.2. The fact of the case are contained in the judgment of the courts below and need not be stated here and suffice to say that on receiving information from 'mukhbir' that accused was working still and manufacturing liquor, the excise inspector after recording the reasons as required Under Section 57 of the Act in writing to the search and found that the accused petitioner was manufacturing liquor and was working still. It was seen by him that a tin was on the oven and the...
Jhebar Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)73
1. Notice of this application has been given to the learned Public Prosecutor, Admit.2. I am of the opinion that this transfer application can be disposed of at this stage. This is an application Under Section 407 Cr. PC seeking transfer of a criminal case No. 167/1989 pending trial in the court of ACJM, Neem-ka-Thana to the court of Munsif Magistrate, Srimadhopur. The only ground on which the transfer is sought is that the case relates to FIR No. 136/198 Srimadhopur and the occurence had taken place in village Dhani-Bada-Khet. Village & Post Mau and the witnesses and the accused belong to that place which is hardly at a distance of 8 Kms. from Srimadhopur whereas Neem-ka-Thana where the court of learned ACJM is situated is at a distance of 70 Kms. and the transfer of the case to Srimadhopur from Neem-ka-Thana will be convenient to both the parties.3. An application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge wits dismissed the application under his order dated 18th September, 1989.4. ...
Lal Bahadur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)53
J.R. Chopra, J.1. All these three writ petitions bearing No. 1871/89 Lal Bahadur v. State of Rajasthan and Others No. 1907/89 Ranjit Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and No. 1799/89 Puran Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Others arise out of a common incident wherein it is alleged that the statements of the petitioners Shri Lal Bahadur and Shri Ranjit Singh which were recorded in the enquiry of Shri Jagdish Chand Khurana were handed over to Shri Puran Ram and it is alleged that these statements after they were signed by the particular officer of the respondent, they were delivered to Shri Puran Ram. How ever, after their delivery to Shri Puran Ram, it is alleged that at the behest of Shri J.C. Khurana, these two persons i.e. Shri Lal Bahadur & Shri Ranjit Singh recorded their statements separately and substituted there for the original statements which were handed over to Shri Puran Ram it is alleged that it is a serious misconduct as per Statute 26(b) and 20 in which it is prov...
Mohan Lal Vs. Distt. Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Raj148; 1990WLN(UC)490
ORDERBhargava, J.1. As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, non-petitioner No. 3 Laxmi Narain had filed an application before the Gram Panchayat, Khilchipur on 20-9-87 seeking permission for raising permanent construction to which the petitioner had objected but the Gram Panchayat granted permission vide order dated 1-5-88 (Annexure 4). The petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 but the same was dismissed on the ground that no revision lies as the petitioner should have filed an appeal under Section 26-A of the Act, and it is against this order passed on the revision petition that the present writ petition has been filed.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, particularly under Section 21(8), the Panchayat can deal with the construction of new building and since Section 21 falls under Chapter II of the Act of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »