Rajasthan Court February 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.
Sunil Talwar Murlidhar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC632; 1991WLN(UC)104
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents (i) to allow remission of Rs. 24,43,449/- for the months of October and November, 1990, during which the petitioners were not able to open their liquor shops due to curfew, (ii) not to adjust any amount from the security amounts and (iii) not be cancel the licence on account of the non-payment of the said amount. The facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.2. The petitioner No. 1 was granted licence under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') for the period from April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1991 for the exclusive privilege for selling country liquor on 75 shops and 45 sub-shops. Curfew was imposed in the entire municipal limits of Jodhpur from October 24 to November 19, 1990. As a result thereof, the liquor shops could not be operated at all during the curfew periods. There was proportionate loss in retail sale of liquor. By letter date...
Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)567
N.C. Kochar, J.1. The appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 IPC in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 33/87. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after completion of the trial held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of Harbhajan vide judgment dated 28.3.89 and sentenced him life imprishment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In case of default of payment of fine, the appellant was awarded further RI for one month. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentences, the appellant preferred an appeal through jail. Mr. Sajjan Singh Naruka was appointed Amicus-Curiae by the Court.2. The incident took place on 28.11.77 at about 10 am. The report of the incident was launched by Genda S/o Bhurelal P.S. Malakhera, on the same day at 5.45 pm. The prosecution case as given out in the report is that at about 10 am. Harbhajan S/o informant's brother Ram Kishan had gone towards the jungle with his cattle. His...
Bhag Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)555
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Being aggrieved against the order/judgment dated October 24, 1990 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar, in criminal revision No. 14/90, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner. The matter relates to the delivery of bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105. The said bus was seized by the police in criminal case FIR No. 143/90 P.S. Kekri, from the possession of non-petitioner No. 2 and the learned Additional Sessions judge after reversing the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kekri, dated 14.1.90, directed that the aforesaid bus bearing registration No. RRM 5105 be handed over to non-petitioner No. 2 Shyam Sunder.2. In order to appreciate the rival claims of the parties, it is necessary to narrate the facts, in brief, which are as under:3. Petitioner Bhag Chand filed a complaint on 1.9.90 against the non-petitioner Shyam Sunder in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kekri which was forwarded under S...
Abdul Aziz Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)WLC558; 1991WLN(UC)541
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. These two petitions have been filed against the order dated August 12, 1988 of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal revision No. 119/1988, as well as, against the order dated October 18, 1984 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal case No. 139/84 (140/83) by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner Abdul Aziz under Section 411 IPC and against the petitioner Kayyum Khan under Section 120B IPC. By the same order the learned Magistrate declined to take cognizance against the accused person under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC. The learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance against Hari Narain under Section 406 IPC and under Section 120 IPC and against Balram under Section 120B IPC. Aggrieved against the said order Abdul Aziz & Kayyum Khan have filed separate petitions challenging the order taking congnizance against them. After being unsuccessful in the revision filed by them. Hari Narain and Ba...
Sawai Singh Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)554
Farooq Hassan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to assail the finding of the learned trial court on merits. He merely submits that while maintaining the conviction of the appellants they may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offender's Act because the learned trial court failed to consider this point. A look at the record shows that the present case is fully covered by the principles laid down in the case reported in 1979 Supreme Court 934. So looking to the age, character and antecedents of the appellants they are entitled to be released on probation.2. This appeal is therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants is maintained but instead of passing any sentence against them they are directed to be released on probation provided each of then furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur with this con...
Gautam Textiles Vs. Regional Director, Esic and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC620
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 82, employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court (Civil Judge), Jodhpur dated May 17,1988 by which it has rejected the petition of the petitioner moved under Section 75 of the Act. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. The petitioner firm carries on Dying and Printing business without using any power since November, 1979 in Marudhar industrial Area, II Phase, Basni, Jodhpur. The petitioner-appellant filed a petition under Section 75 of the Act for quashing the demand of Rs. 26,183.49p. with the allegations, in short, as follows. The non-petitioner-respondents issued a demand for the recovery of Rs. 26,143.49p. as contribution of the period upto October 27, 1982. The Act was made applicable in this Area in the factories in which 20 or more labours were working with effect from March 28,1982 and ...
Purshottam Dass and 35 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)9
1. These 36 special appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 - arise out of common Judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 397 of 1990 Ashok Kumar Jangid v. State of Rajasthan and 91 others connected Writ Petitions decided on November 5, 1990 and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Actually, 49 special appeals were filed but 13 special appeals have been dismissed as not pressed because those 13 appellants have been granted admission in Rajasthan General Nursing Course (for short 'the RNRC Course') during the pendency of their special appeals.3. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these special appeals are: that one Ashok Kumar Jangid filed a Writ petition before this Court bearing No. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 397 of 1990, where in it was claimed that Barmar and Jaisalmer Districts being backward areas, the applicants belonging to B...
Besat and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)100
B.R. Arora, J.1. These four appeals/revision are directed against the judgment dated March 31, 1980, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellants Lala for offence under Section 307 IPC and accused Vesat and Smt. Homli for offence under Section 307 read with Section 114 IPC and awarded a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment to each of them and a fine of Rs. 5000/- to each of the accused appellants. Since all the aforesaid three appeals and one revision arise out of the same judgment, I, therefore, propose to decide them by this common judgment.2. Accused Lala was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur under Section 307 IPC and accused Vesat and Smt. Homli were tried for offence under Section 307 read with Section 114 IPC. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the First Information Report, which was lodged at the Police Station, Panarwa, on January 6, 1979, by one Datta Ra...
Mohd. Hayyat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN459
M. Kapur, J.1. This habeas corpus petition filed in respect of detenu Mehardin, demonstrates complete lack of cordination between the various departments of the State Government and the Central Government, which has resulted in landing of the detenu from one jail to another for a period, which now extends over a year for no fault on his part.2. We have already given detailed facts in our order dated 15th Jan. 1991 and need not repeat the same here except for recapitulating that the detenu who is a Pakistan National visited India on a valid Passport and Visa. During his stay he was alleged to have been involved in smuggling activity. He was granted bail by this Court on 18th Jan. 1990 in a case registered Under Section 135 of the Customs Act. He was then detained under COFEPOSA Act. His detention order passed under COFEPOSA Act also quashed by the Division Bench at Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 23rd Oct., 1990. It is pertinent to mention that when bail was granted a condition was imp...
Hem Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)91
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated January 16, 1989, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, by which the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 109 IPC.2. Sohan Lal, Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B. Kharchi, lodged a First Information Report at the Police Station, Marwar Junction against Champa Lal and Hem Singh on the allegation that on March 31, 1985, Champalal and Hem Singh arranged a collection-camp at village Janura for the collection of the electricity dues from the villagers of village Janura and made recoveries from that village from various subscribers. After the collection of the money from the villagers, the existing bills, the accused labour on but later on deposited lesser amount after fabricating and preparing the new bills. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 469, 468, 471 and 420 IPC was registered against Champa Lal. The police, aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »