Rajasthan Court March 1994 Judgments
Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2229; 1994(1)WLN561
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7-3-94, passed by the Judge, Special Court, S. C./ S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the Special Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. and granted him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ - and a surety in the like amount for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years.2. Accused-appellant Mohan Singh, alongwith his wife Smt. Nirmala, was tried by the learned Judge of the Special Court for the offences under Sections 452 and 323, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case of the prosecution is that on 12-10-91, at about 5.00 p.m., when complainant Ratan Lal came out of his house alongwith his Advocate Shri Mehta in order to show him the site where the encroachment w...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Raj and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN583
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.92, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the order dated 6.6.89 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh.2. One jeep bearing No. PUW-8-601 was seized in a criminal case, which, on the application filed by the petitioners, was given to them on Supurdginama on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surely in the like amount. The surety bonds and the Supurdginama were furnished by the petitioners. As per the bonds, they were required to produce the jeep in the Court on each and every date of hearing. They, also, furnished the bond to the effect that the jeep in question will not be sold during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioners could not produce the jeep on the dates fixed for the production of the jeep and sold the same du...
Tag this Judgment!Haria Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN565
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 6.1.94, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore, by which the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and while maintaining the conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, he set-aside the substantive sentence and enhanced the punishment of fine under both these counts.2. Accused-petitioner Haria was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore, for the offences under Section 337, 279 and 304A IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 6.2.83, at the about 8.30 p.m. the accused was driving the truck bearing No. RRQ 7579 rashly and negligently. At that time one Ali Mohammed alongwith other passengers was, also, travailing in the truck. As the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner, it, therefore, clashed against a board and on the sudden application of the brakes, Ali Mohammed fell down from the truck and died. The prosecution, in sup...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN585
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioners, by this miscellaneous petition, have challenged the order dated 14.9.92, passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Magistrate took cogizance against petitioners Ashok Kumar and Smt. Sushma for the offences under Section 498A and 406 I.P.C. and issued bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 2000/- to secure the presence of the petitioners.2. Complainant Uma Devi W/o Jagdish Rai, on 7.1.92, filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, against Jagdish Rai, Prakash Chandra, Gyan Devi, Purshottam Lal, Pradeep Kumar, Sulochna, Sushma and Ashok Kumar (or the offences under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant was married to the accused No. l Jagdish Rai as per the Hindu customs and rites and at the time of marriage, her parents gave various items mentioned in para No. l as dowry. Sometime after the marriage, ...
Tag this Judgment!Vimlesh Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN589
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this miscellaneous petition, had prayed for quashing the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, pending against him in Case No. 135 of 1993, in the Court of the Collector, Pali, and for the delivery of the truck No. RNN 7989 on Supurdginama to the petitioner; during the pendency of the case.2. Truck No. RNN 7989, which is owned by the petitioner, was checked by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Pali, alongwith the Enforcement Party, in front of the godown of Kriya Vikraya Shakari Samati, Sumerpur, on 7.6.93. At the time of checking, it was found that the truck contained sugar bags. The sugar and the truck were seized. After completing the formalities, the truck was handed-over to Police Station, Sumerpur, and a report was prepared and a criminal case was instituted against Dost Mohammed, Tara Chand and Jayanti Lal for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4, 5(i) and 7 of the Essential Commo...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN591
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The petitioner, by this miscellaneous petition, has challenged the order dated 5.4.91, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balotra, as well as for quashing the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. initiated against him on the complaint filed by Mithu Singh.2. Mithu Singh filed an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against Madho Singh, Ratan Singh, Inder Singh, Sawi Singh and Chhotu Singh in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balotra. It was alleged in the complaint that Madho Singh, Ratan Singh, Indra Singh and Sawi Singh are the sons of Kishore Singh and the petitioner and Chhotu Singh are the sons of Madho Singh and grand-sons of Kishore Singh. They, alongwith their father, are in possession over the land bearing Khasra Numbers 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 28/4, 30, 50, 38, 67 and 72 of village Lalana measuring 38 Bighas 10 Biswas, 31 Biswas, 12 Biswas, 13 Bighas, 12 Bighas 8 Biswas, 1 Biswa, 9 Bighas and 7 Biswas, 17 Bighas and 4 Biswas and 18 Bighas 12 Bis...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. General Mazdoor Union
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR656]; (1995)ILLJ1032Raj; 1994(2)WLC160; 1994(1)WLN438
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Heard Shri Bhandari and perused the record of the case. 2. This writ petition has been presented before this court on February 23, 1994, and challenge in this writ petition has been made to an order dated December 19,1991, passed by the Labour Court, Kota, in Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 1990. 3. A look at the impugned order passed by the Labour Court shows that by this impugned order it has dismissed the application filed by the employer (petitioner) for setting aside the ex-parte award dated February 6, 1990. Which the Labour Court has passed in Reference Case No. 84 of 1987. The Labour Court found that the explanation offered by the employer for the delay in filing an application was wholly unsatisfactory and, therefore, there was no justificationfor condonation of delay in filing of application. The Labour Court also hetd that the facts have not been correctly mentioned in the application filed on behalf of the employer for setting aside the ex pane award ...
Tag this Judgment!Jawari Mal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN685
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 7-5-92, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deedwana (District Nagaur), by which the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and refused to allow him to be impleaded as a party. The order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the application of the petitioner was dismissed only on the ground that in the election dated 24-5-89, one Abdul Majid has been elected as the Chairman and, therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner challenged this order/election dated 24-6- 89 by way of filing a writ petition and the same is pending before this Court and the matter has not been decided so far and till the matter is decided, he is a necessary party. It is further contended that Abdul Majid and Uma Shanker have been made the parties to the writ petition and, th...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN686
B.R. Arora, J.1. These three miscellaneous petitions raise a common question of fact and the law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, for the offences under Sections 395, 120B, 342 and 307 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced all of then for the aforesaid offences. An appeal was filed by the petitioners before the High Court which was allowed. After acquittal, the petitioners moved an application for delivery of the amount which was recovered from them by the investigating agency during the investigation, claiming that amount to be their own. The learned Additional Sessions judge, Rajsamand, on this application, directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, to pass an appropriate order on the application regarding disposal of the property/amount which was recovered during the investigation. A part from the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chand Sharma an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ268Raj; 1994(2)WLC191; 1994(1)WLN433
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Award dated December 20, 1991 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur is under challenge in this writ petition filed by the R.S.R.T.C. (thepetitioner Corporation) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Facts of the case are that workman Kailash Chand Sharma was appointed as Conductor at Alwar Depot of the petitioner Corporation. His bus was checked on October 30, 1980 by the inspecting party near Alwar and it was found that there were some passengers from whom fare had been collected but tickets have not been issued. On the basis of a report submitted by the inspecting party, a domestic enquiry was initiated against the workman vide charge sheet dated November 27, 1980. After holding the domestic enquiry, the Corporation removed the workman from service by an order dated August 10, 1982. Termination of service of the workman became subject matter of reference which the State Government made to the Labour Court, Bharatpur for adjudication vide Notifica...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »