Rajasthan Court January 1991 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.
Madan Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN131
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated November 6,1989, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chittorgarh, by which the learned Magistrrate allowed the application Under Section 311 Cr.P.C, tiled by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and allowed the Assitant Public Prosecutor to produce the witnesses.2. Accused-petitioner is facing trial Under Section 4/9 the Opium Act in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chittorgarh. During the pendency of the trial, an application was moved by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for summoning the witnesses, viz., O.P. Puri, Durga Lal, Chaturbhuj and Chunni Lal. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated November 6,1989, allowed the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and directed the A.P.P. to produce the witnesses O.P. Puri, Chaturbhuj and Durga Lal himself on February 12,1990 and he may summon the witness Chunni Lal through the Court. It is ...
Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Jagdish Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN133
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated April 6, 1989, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, rejected the application Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioners.2. Abdul Majid, on November 29, 1974, filed an application Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, to re-open the case which was decided by him on March 26, 1977. The notice of this application was issued to the opposite party, who contested the application and the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that if the party has any grievance with the order dated March 26, 1977, then they should have approach the Appellate/Revisional Court to seek redress, but the order passed by the Court earlier cannot be re-opened. It is against this order that the present petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been fil...
Diwan Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN136
B.R. Arora, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been directed against the order dated January 12, 1988, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajgarh (district Churu), by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners Under Sections 147, 323 and 447 I.P.C.2. Complainant Ram Singh, on September 22, 1984, filed a complaint in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajgarh, against the present petitioners with respect to the agricultural land, measuring 207.7 Bighas, situated in village Dhanodi Badi. teshil Rajgarh, district Churu Under Sections 147, 323 and 447 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate sent this complaint Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the Police Station Rajgarh, for further investigation. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the Final Report in the matter. The learned Magistrate, after the receipt of the Final Report, issued notice to the complainant and the complainant filed a protest...
Geeta Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLC527; 1991(2)WLN156
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The petitioner in these writ petitions are transferees of land transferred in their favour by the tenants who had acquired Khatedari rights. Their transfers, however, have been treated by the respondents as void, being in contravention of the provisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). The petitioners have challenged the validity of Sections 13 and 13-A of the Act. As identical questions are involved in all these writ petitions, we propose to dispose them of by a common order.2. At the commencement of the arguments, Mr. Purohit, Mr. Sidhu, Mr. Kalla, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bunch of 95 Writ Petitions involving identical questions were decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 24-2-86, wherein Sections 13 and 13-A of the Act were held to be valid. Learned Counsel submitted that certain petitioners, aggrieved of that decision, have preferred Special Appeals, challenging t...
Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. Kailashi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: I(1991)ACC484; 1991ACJ518
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated August 18,1990 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karoli, District Sawai Madhopur, in MAC.T. Case No. 53 of 1988 (Kailashi Devi v. Kanhaiya Lal).2. The claim petition was filed by the respondents on May 31,1988. The respondents thereafter moved an application under Section 92-A of the 1939 Act for payment of 'no fault compensation' in respect of the death of Parma.3. The sole controversy involved in this case is whether Section 140 of the new Act (1988 Act) could be applied to the accident, which occurred or took place before coming into force of the 1988 Act.4. Section 140 provides for payment of Rs. 25,000/- as no fault compensation. This has raised the amount from Rs. 15,000/-provided for by Section 92-A of the 1939 Act to Rs. 25,000/-. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was th...
Mohan Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLC156; 1991(1)WLN147
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated November 3, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.2. Complainant Mohan Lal filed a complaint against Vidhyadhar for offence Under Section 477 I.P.C. in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur. The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and Ramvilas and took cognizance against the accused Under Section 477/204 I.P.C. by his order dated August 2, 1978, and issued process. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate or November 11, 1977, and thereafter the arguments were heard for framing the charge and after hearing the argument, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the ingredients of any of the offence have not been made-out and he, therefore, refused to frame the charge against the accused and ...
Rajendra Singh Alias Rajia Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC704; 1991(1)WLN182
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated August 7,1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by which the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioner Under Sections 366, 376/114 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. A First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Kotwali, Bikaner, by Kumari Sarita against Devi Singh, Nathu Ram, Shvi Kumar and the accused-appellant Rajendra Singh and it was alleged in that report that a day before, she had gone to Suraj Talkies to see a movie and when she came out of the cinema hall at about 9.30 p.m. and was standing near a door, a taxi came there, which was driven by accused Devi Singh and accused Nathu Ram was, also, sitting in the taxi. They forcibly picked her and brought to Maharani Sudarshan College and there she was raped by Devi singh, Nathu Ram and Shiv Kumar. A case Under Sections 363 and 376 I.P.C. was registered against Devi Singh, Nathu Ram and Shiv Kumar and after regis...
Sugna Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN185
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated January 14, 1991. By which the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner, for offence Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. According to the prosecution, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dchatra, on November 12, 1983, on the information of the informant (MUKHBIR) went to the house of Sugna Ram and on search, an old Topidar-gun was recovered from his hut. On the basis of this recovery, a case Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered and the police, after necessary investigation, presented a challan against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced seven witnesses. The accused, in his defence, examined DW 1 Ganga, who is the sister-in-law of the accuse...
Harish Meena and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN160
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated January 19, 1990, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Makrana, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences Under Sections 147, 323, 342 and 504 I.P.C.2. Complainant Rekha Ram filed a complaint against the petitioners and Badan Singh, Salig Ram, Gumana Ram, Pratap Singh and Devi Singh Under Sections 147, 323, 342 and 504 I.P.C. in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Makrana on April 15, 1988. In the complaint, various allegations were made against the petitioners as well as the other accused-persons. The learned Magistrate, after submissions of the complaint, recorded the statements of Rekha Ram, Rajendra Singh, Ganpat Ram, Girdhari Ram, Kheta Ram, Balu Ram, Modu Ram, Ramesh, Ramu Ram, Lalu Ram, Parmanand and Khinwa Ram Under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. After recording the evidence and perusing the same, the learned Magistrate, by his orde...
Kalyan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN141
B.R. Arora, J.1. This criminal revision-petition is directed against the order dated October 16, 1986, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 10 of 1981, by which the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision-petition filed by the State of Rajasthan.2. Sona Ram filed a complaint Under Section 467, I.P.C. against Kalyan Singh in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, on July 21, 1978. The learned Magistrate forwarded this complaint Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the Circle Inspector, Jalore, for further investigation. Alter receipt of the case, the police registered a case Under Section 467 I.P.C. against the petitioner Kalyan Singh. The police conducted the necessary investigation and after necessary investigation and after obtaining the Sanction from the State Government, presented the challan against Kalyan Singh and Peera Ram for offences Under Sections 169, 467, 468 and 120B, I.P.C in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,...