Rajasthan Court April 1991 Judgments
Basti Ram Mangal Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLC564; 1991(1)WLN270
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This writ petition is initially filed by the petitioner against the State of Rajasthan, The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Rajasthan, Jaipur and Shri J.K. Soni on 6.1.1987 alongwith number of annexures and affidavits.2. A reply to the show cause notice was filed by the respondent No. 3 on 30.3.87 t alongwith certain annexures. On behalf of respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan, a reply was filed on 13.7.87. The petitioner filed separate rejoinders along with certain documents to the replies filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 on 7.10.87 A reply to the rejoinder was filed by respondent No. 3 on 21.10.87 and to that, a further rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 8.11.87 alongwith certain documents. The respondents thereafter filed a rejoinder to the reply on 13.11.87. An additional affidavit was also filed by respondent No. 3 Shri J.K. Soni on 17.11.87. A rejoinder to the reply of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was filed by the petitioner on 3.2.88 and a reply to the r...
Tag this Judgment!Basti Ram Mangal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN15
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This writ petition is initially filed by the petitioner against the State of Rajasthan. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Rajasthan Jaipur and Shri J.K. Soni on 6.1.1987 alongwith number of annexures and affidavits.2. A reply to the show cause notice was filed by the respondent No. 3 on 30.3.87 alongwith certain annexures. On behalf of respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan, a reply was filed on 13.7.87. The petitioner filed separate rejoinders alongwith certain documents to the replies filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 on 7.10.87. A reply to the rejoinder was filed by respondent No. 3 on 21.10.87 and to that, a further rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 8.11.87 alongwith certain documents. The respondents thereafter filed a rejoinder to the reply on 13.11.87. An additional affidavit was also filed by respondent No. 3 Shri J.K. Soni on 17.11.87. A rejoinder to the reply of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was filed by the petitioner on 3.2.88 and a reply to the rejo...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN381
B.R. Arora, J.1. These six miscellaneous petitions are directed against the order dated August 10, 1990, passed by the Special Judge, Anti-corruption Department Cases, Bikaner by which the learned Special Judge framed the charges against the petitioners.2. Superintendent of Police Anti-corruption Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, lodged a First Information Report on February 15, 1983, at Police Station, Anti-corruption Department, Bikaner, against accused petitioners Harisingh Bhati, Jaspal Suri, Mukat Biharilal Mathur, Ramesh Kumar, Praveen Kumar Chawla, Inder Singh Thekedar of M/s. Jaikarni General Stores and Davendra Singh Contractor. It was stated in the First Information Report that Shri Hari Singh Bhati Executive Engineer, Ballar Division, R.C.P. C.A.D., Bikaner, Shri Mukat Bihari Lal Mathur, Assistant Engineer, R.D. 66-B.L.D., J.P. Suri, Assistant Engineer, R.D.-112 C.A.D. Pugal Branch, Joint Engineers Ramesh Kumar Chawla, and Praveen Kumar Jakkhar alongwith Indra Singh of M/s. Jai...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh and anr. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)572
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner Mohan Singh was prosecuted under Section 326 IPC and ultimately convicted by the Trial Magistrate and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- vide judgment dated 29.3.1985.2. Against his conviction and sentences he preferred an appeal which was pending for disposal in the Court of Additional District & Sessions, Jaipur District, Jaipur (Camp Sarnbhar Lake). Before the Appellate Court, an application was moved which was signed by the accused petitioner Mohan Singh and the complainant Gulab Singh, with a prayer to grant permission to compound the offence of 326 IPC under which the petitioner Mohan Singh was convicted by the Trial Magistrate. The application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on February 8, 1991 on the ground that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable as such, no permission to compound the said offence can be granted.3. Now this petition has been filed jointly by the accused and the complainant ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Chandra and anr. Vs. Jasvinder Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ747
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of the amount of compensation under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara, dated October 28, 1987, granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,000/- only.2. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 1 Jasvinder Singh (owner of the offending truck) died. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that he wrote letters to the appellants for intimating him the names and addresses of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Jasvinder Singh, they have replied that they are not in a position to send the names and addresses of the legal representatives and as such he was not able to move an application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent Jasvinder Singh on record vide order-sheet dated April 23,1991.3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that even ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)190
J.R. Chopra, J.1. On joint request the case was finally heard. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this jail Appeal brief to state are : that on 4.9.84 deceared Rameshwer and accused Sohaniya went to graze their cattle in the filed. There, it is alleged that deceased Rameshwar asked Sohaniya whether he has married as they both happened to be friends. When Sohaniya said that he has not married whereupon Rameshwar told Sohaniya that he should send his wife to him for three to four days, this infuriated Sohaniya and they scuffled with each other and thereafter, the other persons i.e. P.W. 5 Bhanwara and PW 6 Prem Singh who were present there, intervened and rescued them from each other. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused Sohaniya who was armed with a lathi, struck a blow on the head of the deceased Rameshwar whereby he was seriously injured, became unconscious and was shifted to the hospital and there he expired in the same night.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Chunnilal and ors. Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)187
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by petitioners Chunnilal and Dalchand through one Madhs, who happens to be the brother-in-law looser of detenu Chunnilal and Dalchand, who were lodged in District Jail Chittorgarh in a case under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').2. It is alleged that the petitioners were arrested on 18.4.1990 and their arrest has been shown to have occured on 20.4.1990. The FIR No. 116/90 was registered against them in Police Station, Kapasan. They were produced before the Magistrate on 21.4.1990 and thereafter, they have been remanded to custody on different dated i.e. 30.4.1990, 2.5.1990, 16.5.1990, 30.5.1990, 12.6.1990, 26.6.1990, 10.7.1990 and 24.7.1990. On 10.7.1990 a challan was filed against them in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh and thereafter, the case was committed to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, who remanded ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalpat Singh and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLC397; 1991(2)WLN178
R.S. Verma, J.1. These six writ petitions have been heard together by consent of all concerned. Since a very short point is involved in them, they are being disposed of at the admission stage, itself. Since the questions of facts and law involved in each one of them are identical, I am disposing them by a common order.2. Reply to show cause notice was filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209/1991-Ishwar Singh and Ors. v. State and Ors. Replies in other cases have not been filed. Reply filed in S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 1209/1991 has been adopted by the learned Government Advocate in all the cases and learned Counsel for petitioners in all these writ petitions agree that reply filed in Ishwar Singh's case may be taken as reply in the other writ petitions too. Hence, the reply in Ishwar Singh's case has been taken as representative reply to all the writ petitions. For this very reason, I need not state the pleas raised in all the writ petitions, and a brief delineation of the averme...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Gangwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ447Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. The petitioner had attained the age of 57 years at the time of filing of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner gives out that the petitioner is going to retire on April 30, 1991.2. The petitioner joined service as L.D.C. in 1954 and after 13 years of service he was placed under suspension by order dated February 21, 1967 passed by the Principal and Controller of S.M.S. Medical College and attached Hospitals. He was involved in a criminal case. He was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur on November 8, 1983. His conviction was however, set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated June 5, 1984. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated October 22, 1967 (sic October 22, 1970). Thus the petitioner has remained under suspension from February 21, 1967 till date i.e. for a period of more than 24 years and 2 months. For 13 years, he had serve...
Tag this Judgment!Anirudh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN448
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 11-6-82 whereby the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dated 17-6-80 was confirmed and the conviction under Section 25(l)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentence of one years R.I. was maintained.2. Brief facts which give rise to this petition are that in pursuance of the information to police dated 24-6-75, by one Salim who was arrested in FIR No. 14/75, that he has given 10 rifles to the man who is silting at the Bus Stand, on the basis of this 10 rifles and 16 cartridges were recovered from the petitioner on 27-1-75, who was identified by Salim. After arresting the petitioner vide Ex. P-2, a search memo was prepared and thereupon FIR No. 16/75 was registered against the petitioner and Salim. After due investigation and obtaining necessary sanction from the District Magistrate, both the accused were challaned under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »