Rajasthan Court October 1994 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.
Dr. Jal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
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...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Harish Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
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...
Mal Singh and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2279
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16th February, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar and as such those are being decided by a common judgment.2. Appellant Mal Singh and Gurumukh Singh and co-accused Inder Singh faced trial before the learned trial Judge for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 460 I.P.C., who by his impugned judgment found appellants Mal Singh and Gurumukh Singh guilty for the offences under Section 302, read with 34, I.P.C. and 460, I.P.C. and setenced each one of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for one year on the first count and seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on the second count, and further directed that their substantive sciences shall run concurrently. However, he acquitted co-accused Inder Singh.3. Briefly the factual matrix on which the prosec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›