Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ278Raj
Arun Madan, J.1. This petition has been filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India read with Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service) Rules 1975 and in the matter of Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules')2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is an adopted son of (Late) Shri Ram Niwas Sharma who expired on December 13, 1972 during his service tenure after remaining ill for a long period. The said Shri Ram Niwas Sharma was posted at Tahsil Sikrai as Class IV employee before his demise. He was appointed on the said post on June 14, 1943 and his date of birth was June 12, 1918. It has been further contended in the writ petition that the natural father of the petitioner was Shri Hijari Lal Sharma S/o. (Late) Shri Ram Dhan Sharma who expired on M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)IIILLJ1166Raj; 1995(3)WLC274
Arun Madan, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the above-named petitioners challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated January 25, 1984 published on September 29, 1984 and against the order of JointLabour Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur-II, dated March 19, 1985. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly staled, arc that the petitioners aretwo separate establishments registered under the Small Scale Industries and the main occupation of both the establishments is manufacturing of cloth by power-looms. While petitioner No. 1 i.e., Gulab Powerloom Factory, Madanganj at Kishangarh was established in the year 1966, Banwarilal Textile Factory, Madanganj, Kishangarh (petitioner No. 2) was established in the year 1976, both being sister Concerns. It is pertinent to mention that one Shri Ramniwas was an employee with Banwarilal Textile (petitioner No. 2) and had joined the said concern as a part-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ163Raj; 1995(2)WLC506
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed in this Court by the management of the petitioner industry in the matter of Industrial Disputes Act and interpretation concerning its relevant provisions.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 and other workmen of the petitioner-industry went on strike thereby committing dereliction of duty and misconduct for which they were issued charge-sheet and passed suspension orders which were served on them in the first week of April, 1979. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents. During the intervening period of the inquiry there was some settlement between the Union representing the workmen and the management and as a consequence of the settlement, the union withdrew its claim against the management on behalf of the workmen and it was agreed as a result of the settlement that non-petitioners Nos. 2 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1995Raj189; 1995(3)WLC191
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. This is plaintiff's revision filed under Section 113, C.P.C. against the order dated 1-4-1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Pali whereby while deciding issue No. 3 as preliminary issue, it was held that suit document being a pronote not sufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 6-8-76 for recovery of Rs. 83,500/- on the basis of a letter dated 28-10-1973. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the suit and filed their separate written statements on 6-10-79 and 25-2-1977 respectively stating that accounts have been settled on 27-10-93 and nothing subsists as there is no dealing between the parties. The defendants also raised a preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable as the document is not properly stamped. The learned trial Court framed as many as five issues on 3-1-1981 including the issue No. 3, which runs as under: -- 'Whether the suit document not being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995CriLJ983; 1995(2)WLC585
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. The instant Criminals Jail Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 6-8-1986 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Cr. Case No. 33/85 convicting and sentencing accused Bhawani Giri alias Deo Karan Under Sections 366A, 376, 377, 324 and 342, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appel-lant guilty of the aforesaid offences and eon victed and sentenced him for seducing minor girl aged about 3 years namely Kumari Durga prosecutrix for illicit intercourse committing rape and unnatural offence causing voluntary hurt by his teeth on her cheeks and wrongfully confining her. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused-appellant u/Section 376, IPC for imprisonment of life together with a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default to further undergo six months' R.I., u/Section 366A, IPC the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for 10 years' R.I. together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to further undergo six months' R.I., u/Section 37...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(1)WLC93; 1994(2)WLN538
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. The sole contention of Mr. Gupta is that petitioner's right for speedy trial has been offended in this case wherein he has been facing trial since the year 1980 and till this date, not a single prosecution witness has been examined; that the offence is of a trivial nature and that even prima facie, no offence is made out against him and, as such, it will be a futile exercise to prolong the proceedings in this case.2. The Public Prosecutor after perusing the record of the lower court concedes that till today, not a single prosecution witness has been examined in this case. However, he submits that a direction be given to the trial Magistrate to expedite the trial of this case within a stipulated period.3. I have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. It appears that the Enforcement Inspector, Srimadhopur inspected the shop of the petitioner, which was run under the name and style of Firm Rastriya Vastra Bhandar, where he found that the petitioner was hading...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995CriLJ819
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-9-93, passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur, by which the learned Special Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 8/17 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. PW. 2 Baktawar Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Jaitaran, was on a Special Checking Duty in connection with 'Road Safety Week' campaign. On 10-1-93, he was checking the motor vehicles, as per directions of the Superintendent of Police, Pali, on Jaitaran-Agewa road and had laid a barrier. At about 2.00 p.m., the accused came on a moped-vickey. On search 1,730 kgs. of opium milk and 430 grams of opium were recovered from the dicky of the moped, which were seized. Two sample...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(1)WLC425; 1994(2)WLN444
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed-off by a common order because a common point of law is involved therein.2. These revision petitions have been preferred against the orders dated 3.7.92 and 29.7.92 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar in Sessions Case No.41/90 'State v. Harish Chadra' and Session Case No. 21/92 'State v. Devi and Ors.' respectively whereby allowing the application filed on behalf of accused non- petitioner (s), the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused non-petitioner (s) of the offence Under Sections 5(1)(9)(b), Explosive Act, 1884 and Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive substances Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and dropped the trials against them for want of valid sanction for prosecution Under Sections 7 of the Act.3. Now briefly the facts. In Haraish Chandra's case the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Raj., Jaipur submitted the challan against the accused for the offence Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2295; 1995(3)WLC150
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-7-1992, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Udaipur, by which the learned Special Judge discharged the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 3/7, of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, 'the Act') and further observed that the offences under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 120B, I.P.C. are not summary triable and, therefore, if the State so likes, it may file the charge-sheet against the accused in the competent Court.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22-10-1984, Bhanwar Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Lines, Udaipur, was on patrolling duty in connection with Deepawali festival. While he was in Bapu Bazar, Udaipur, he was informed by one Mukhbir that fifty-seven bags of sugar were released by the 'Rajasthan Janjaati Vikas Sahkari Sangh, Udaipur, to the dealers Prakash Chandra, Kanti Lal, Hari Singh, Kalu Lal, Prem Mohan and Kama...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ922; 1995(1)WLC608; 1994(2)WLN448
ORDERRajendra Saxena. J.1. The aforementioned petitions filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. arises out of the judgment dated 30-8-88 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. I, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 76/1981 'State of Rajasthan v. Musariya'; whereby the said Sessions Judge ordered for initiating proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P. C. against the petitioners for prosecuting them for offences under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C, and, as such, these petitions are being decided by a common order.2. Stated in succinct, the relevant facts are that on the report of one Udai Singh, Crime No. 4/1981 was registered at Police Station, Weir. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against Musariya and others in the Court of concerned Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The charges, for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C, were framed against the accused perso...
Tag this Judgment!