Rajasthan Court January 1992 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.
Mohan Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3193; 1993(3)WLC569
N.L. Tibrewal, J. 1. This Larger Bench is required to answer the following questions of law referred to it:-i) Whether composition of offence/offences, except as provided by Section 320 Cr. P.C., can be permitted in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., specially when Sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C. expressly prohibits;ii) If the answer is given in affirmative, whether this permission can be granted after the conviction of the accused under the offence/ offences which is/are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. The necessity to answer second question shall arise only if question No. 1 is decided in the affirmative.2. The relevant facts necessitating the reference are:The petitioner-Mohan Singh was convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate under Section 326 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- vide judgment dated March 29, 1985 for causing grievous injury to Gulab Singh. He preferred an appeal which was pending for disposal ...
Gordhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)12
N.L. Tiberwal, J.1. Heard.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an old man aged 78 years and that he happens to be the landlord of the complainant party. He argued that M/s Popular Bread Factory which was being run by the tenants has wound-up the business from Kota and shifted to Indore. He also argued that a civil suit was filed by him on Setp. 24, 1991 bearing Civil Suit No. 465/91 in the Court of Munsif South, Kota for the recovery of Rs. 2750/- against the partners of the said firm. According to the learned counsel, this complaint has been filed on 19/11/1991 at P.S. Gumanpura Kota in order to pressurize the petitioner.2. After going through the averments made in the complaint and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and the age of the petitioner, I am inclined to grant him pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.3. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police Station Gumanpura, Kota in F.I.R. No. 702...
Narayan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)10
R.S. Verma, J.1. The petitioner was tried along with certain other accused persons for offences Under Section 148, 326, I.P.C. by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan. It was alleged that with the help of other co-accused the petitioner cut the nose of his wife Kankudi on 14.3.75 and caused grievous hurt to her. The learned Magistrate convicted various accused persons for offences Under Section 148 and 326 along with Sections 114 and 149, I.P.C. He also convicted and sentenced the present petitioner for offence Under Section 326, I.P.C. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh camp Chittorgarh acquitted all the co-accused persons of all the charges levelled against them. Revision petitioner was acquitted of offence Under Section 148, I.P.C. but his conviction for offence Under Section 326, I.P.C. was maintained. The sentence passed upon him was also maintained. Aggrieved, he has come to this Court by way of revision petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petition...
Anand Prakash Vs. Raghuveer Singh Pareek
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC84; 1992WLN(UC)348
I.S. Israni, J.1. It is submitted by learned Counsel that a suit for rent & eviction was filed in the year 1980. The petitioner is tenant-defendant. It is submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent has been closed and the matter was fixed for evidence of the petitioner-defendant. An application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed for amending the written statement and setting up a counter claim/plea for fixation of standard rent. This application was rejected on the ground that as per provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, since the counter claim was not filed by the petitioner in the written statement, no such amendment can be allowed at this stage. It is submitted by learned Counsel that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is applicable only to plaintiff and Rule 2 specifically lays down 'where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.' It is therefore, submitted...
Mahal Singh S/O Abaj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN1
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a certified copy of the judgment dated Dec. 18,1980 of SDO, Navalgarh in Civil Suit No. 150/76 to show that the accused persons were in possession of the land in question since long, in any case prior to 1976, and this fact has been admitted by the complainant-Balaram S/o Gullaram Meena.2. After taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid judgment in the Revenue Suit, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which the interim order dated Sept. 30, 1991 be made absolute and the petitioners be granted pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr. PC.3. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police Station, Gudha [Jhunjhunu) in FIR No. 127/1991, is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Mahal Singh S/o Abaj Singh, Sawai Singh S/o Kan Singh, Birbal Singh S/o Kan Singh, Ram Singh S/o Kan Singh and Banney Singh S/o Mahal Singh, they be...
Prakash Lal Mathur Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN185
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Petitioner in the above petition seeks a mandamus against the respondents to carryout their obligation to provide him employment under the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Govt. Servant Dying While In Service) Rules, 1975, hereinafter called as the rules of 1975'.2. It is stated by the petitioner that his father Madan Mohanlal Mathur was working as Patwari in Tehsil Osian Distt. Jodhpur. He died while he was in service on 13-4-1964. At that time when the petitioner's father died, petitioner was only about three years of age, his date of birth being 30th Sept. 1962. Petitioner having passed higher Secondary in the year 1979, also obtained Polytechnic Diploma in Engineering and has also cleared I.T.I. examination. It is contended by the petitioner that when his father expired, the rules of 1975 were not in force and no employment was offered to the dependents of the deceased Government employees. When rules of 1975 came into force, the same were made applicable ...
J.C. Calla and ors. Vs. University of Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN197
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Aforesaid these three petitions raise common questions of law and, therefore, they are decided by a common order. In order to appreciate the controversy, the facts relating to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 248 of 1986 are detailed hereinafter.2. Petitioners J.C. Calla was appointed as L.D.C. on 2.6.58 in Excise and Taxation Department. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to Directorate of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur.3. By University of Jodhpur Act, 1962, the University of Jodhpur was established on 1 4th July, 1 962. This newly established Jodhpur University tookover the teaching staff as well as the ministerial staff of the constituent colleges employed in various posts in ministerial cadre. The University also invited the applications for giving appointment on various posts under it from persons already working at various places including other Govt. Departments. As a consequence of holding interview, petitioners was appointed vide order dated 15/2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›