Rajasthan Court February 1991 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Teejo and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ678
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Banner dated December 15, 1988 by which the claimant-respondents have been granted Rs. 1,49,500 as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.2. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus:On February 1, 1986, at about 7 p.m. late Bhagwana Ram, husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1 and father of the claimant-respondent Nos. 2 to 6, was going on his bullock-cart on the correct side of the road. Water-tanker No. RJC 3798 came along from behind and dashed against the bullock-cart. As a result thereof, Bhagwana Ram was flung off the cart impetuously and succumbed on the spot, the bullocks received serious injuries and the cart was badly damaged. Police Station Barmer registered a case against the tanker driver Shankarlal. The claimants filed their ...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Mal Purohit and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN116a
N.K. Jain, J.1. These special appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the writ petitions of the petitioners by one common order dated 28.6.19862. Since similar questions of fact and law are involved in these special appeals and as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties they are being disposed of by one common judgment.3. The petitioners have prayed that as they are senior to respondents they be granted promotion to the post of Assistant from 1.7.68 or from the date respondents no.5 to 9 were promoted, with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits. They have further prayed that any person junior to them may not be promoted as Superintendent No. II or I during the pendency of the writ petition. On 18.1.88 the appellants have moved applications for the amendment of the writ petitions and prayed that persons as serial nos. 10 to 29 may be impleaded as respondents. Notice of amendment application was issued on 25.4.1988. Mr....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swaroop Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN218
Kanta Bhatnager, J.1. In this petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has prayed for expunging the remarks made against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Case No. 228 of 1981 on September 12, 1983.2. Petitioner in his capacity as Food Inspector, took sample of milk from one Shanker Teli resident of Surajpole, Banswara on October 12, 1981 and suspecting it to be adulterated proceeded with under the Food Adulteration Act. The sample was found to be adulterated by the Chemical Examiner and Shanker Teli was tried for the charge Under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). During the course of trial it was found that the bottle containing the sample was not properly sealed and it was possible for any one to remove the seal and change the sample and place the seal in the same manner Ram Swaroop, the Food Inspector, who had sealed the samples in that case, in his cross-examination was confro...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchander Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN522
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 15.7.87, whereby he has convicted accused appellant Ramchander Under Section 302, IPC and has sentenced him to undergo, imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.2. The facts, in short, are that on 4.1.86 one Heeralal (PW 2) lodged an FIR stating therein that at about 4 p.m. he was in his field when he received an information that Ramchander, his brother had killed his wife Parmeshwari; thereupon, he went to the house of Ramchander and saw that Parmeshwari was lying dead. Her daughter Imarti and her brother Kishan were sitting there. They told him that Ramchander had killed Parmeshwari at about 3.30 p.m., and had ran away. They further stated that Ramchander was asking Parmeshwari to give him money for drinking wine and when she did not give, he had beaten her and consequently ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)95
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated March 1, 1990, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. cases, Jodhpur, by which the learned Special Judge dismissed the application under Sections 91 and 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Shri Yaspal Bhatiya.2. The petitioner and Yaspal Bhatiya are facing trial under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120B IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I, cases, Jodhpur, On January 8, 1990, two applications were moved by Yaspal Bhatiya before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jodhpur, under Sections 91 and 294 Cr.P.C. by the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Yaspal Bhatiya prayed that three documents, mentioned in that application, should be called from the prosecution as it is necessary for the disposal of the case. By another application, moved under Section 294 Cr.P.C. It was prayed by Yaspal Bhatiya that the prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Limited and ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar Be ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)81
B.R. Arora, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order for taking the cognizance against the petitioners as well as for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 220 of 1989 Pramod Kumar Bedi v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industirics Limited and Ors. in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bikaner.2. Pramod Kumar Bedi, Executive Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (Procurement Division) Purchase Circle, Bikaner, on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, filed a complaint against M/s. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Limited and Sarvashri Sanjay Kumar Modi, SuniJ Gautan and Paras Kuhar for offences under Section 133 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant invited tenders on March 2, 1989, for supply of cement. Several tenders including M/s. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Limit...
Tag this Judgment!Himta Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)125
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated May 28, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition filed by Mani Ram and order for the custody of the bus to be given to Mani Ram.2. A bus No. RSC 565 was seized by Police Station, Pilibanga, in a Criminal Case No. 97 of 1986 The State of Rajasthan v. Kalu Khan pending in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh. After the seizure of the bus, the registered owner of the bus Shri Himta Ram made an application for custody of the bus and the learned Magistrate, by his order dated February 3, 1986, ordered for the custody of the bus in favour of Himta Ram on 'SUPURDGINAMA' with surety. Himta Ram filed surety bond and the custody of the bus was handed over to him. After the delivery of the bus to Himta Ram, Badri Singh, who stood surety, moved an application on June 29, 1987, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Himta Ram Vs. Mani Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)123
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for restoration of the miscellaneous petition No. 267/88 which was dismissed in default on January 11, 1988.2. A bus No. RSC 565 was seized by the police on June 26, 1987 in a Criminal Case No. 97 of 1986 The State of Rajasthan v. Kalu Khan and Ors. under Section 129(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. After the seizure of the bus, the petitioner Himta Ram moved an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the Roadways Magistrate, Bikaner, for delivery of the bus. Mani Ram non petitioner, No. 2, also, filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for delivery of the bus to him. The learned Roadways Magistrate, by his order dated June 30, 1987 decided both the applications filed by the petitioner as well as by Mani Ram for the custody of the bus. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected while the application filed by Mani Ram was allowed and the Court directed that the bus i...
Tag this Judgment!Surjeet Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)138
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated November 29, 1990, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumargarh, by which the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner under Sections 408, 420, 467, 471, 474, 477A read with Section 120B IPC.2. Som Prakash Moga, Branch Manager, the Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Tibi, filed a written complaint at the Police Station, Tibi, on January 1,1988, alleging therein that Surjeet Singh was working as the Manager of the cooperative Society Since November 17, 1986 to August 4, 1988, and Krishna Kumar was working as the salesman since August 27, 1986 to Many 6, 1987 The Audit of the Cooperative Society for the period from July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987 was done by Shri Yadav Chand Ojha, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Hanumangarh, and during the audit, it was found that the accused Surjeet Singh and Krishna Kumar, who were working as the Manager and the Salesman res...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Dayal Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)535
Farooq Hassan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Special Judge (ACD) Cases Jaipur, by which, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence Under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of PC Act and passed two different sentences on the aforesaid two counts. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that at the relevant time accused Shiv Dayal was working as Patwari in Circle No 27 Chainpura Tehsil Haroti in the year 1977. On 22.8.77 Radhey Shyam s/o Bhonriga Lal lodged a written report before Dy. S.P. out-post Sawai Madhopur alleging therein that the Government had allotted 3/12 Bighas land through S D.O. of agriculture land in favour of informant's father Bhonriya and patta was also granted to his father. But the mutation was not done by Patwari even after repeated request for about 1-1/2 year. The accused has been avoiding to enter the mutation. On this his brother Ram Khilari submitted an a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »