Rajasthan Court May 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.
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1231; 1995(3)WLC704; 1994(2)WLN236
ORDERN.K. Tibrewal, J.1. An important question of law has been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The question is : Whether an accused can claim cross-examination to prosecution witnesses as of right at a subsequent stage of trial, if he failed to avail this right when opportunity was provided?2. In order to appreciate the problem, it is necessary to give necessary facts.The husband-petitioner is facing trial under Section 498A, IPC in the Court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. July 2, 1993 was fixed for recording prosecution evidence. On this date, the witnesses, Smt. Sushila and Smt. Sunder appeared for their evidence. Their examination-in-chief was recorded and cross-examination was deferred for the next date on the request of the accused on the ground that his counsel was not available. On the next date i.e. July 3, 1993, the witnesses again appeared in the Court, but, instead of cross-examining them, the petitioner ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajesh Agrawal and ors. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1057; 1994(1)WLN642
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. These sixteen revision petitions arise out of the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Cases Court, Jodhpur. In all these revision petitions, the accused are facing trial for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The learned Special Judge of the Essential Commodities Cases Court, Jodhpur, who recorded the statements of the witnesses, was transferred. The Special Judge, who succeeded, ordered for de novo trial in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 326 Cr.P.C, which makes Section 326 Cr.P.C. inapplicable in the cases of summary trial.2. The controversy involved in the present case is whether the de novo trial is obligatory with the change of the Special Judge who recorded the evidence or part of it but has not pronounced the judgment? Looking to the gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed, the cases under the Essential Commodities Act are warrant cases but the warr...
Davendra Kumar Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN318
Arun Madan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the interim order dated 6th July, 1991, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli, District Sawai Madhopur in MAC No. 39/88, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded Rs. 15,000/-, on the principle of 'No Fault Liability' Under Section 140 of the Act, to the appellant, who is the sole legal heir of the deceased, instead of awarding Rs. 25,000/- as stipulated under the Act.2. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the incident which took place on 27th December, 1987 resulting in death of the father of the appellant (deceased) who was travailing as a passenger in Bus No. RRL-2747, being driven by respondent No 4, rashly and negligently. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the father of the deceased-appellant, who was travelling in the said bus had sustained serious injuries as a consequence of which he died while travelling in the bus.3. T...
Khema and ors. Vs. Shri Bhagwan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj94; 1995(3)WLC440; 1994(2)WLN322
P.R. Yadav, J.1. This second appeal has been filed under Section 100, C.P.C. by defendant appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1980 passed by learned District Judge. Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1977 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22-10-1977 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara in original Civil suit No. 34 of 1971 -- Bhagwan and Anr. v. Khema and Ors.2. It is pertenant to mention that the learned District Judge. Bhilwara by his impugned judgment and decree had allowed the cross objections filed by plaintiff respondent Bhagwana and his mother Nani under Order 1, Rule 22, C.P.C. modifying the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge decreeing the restoration of the possession by ejecting the defendant appellants Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant respondent No. 4.3. Civil Suit was filed by Shri Bhagwana and his mother Smt. Nani plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground inter alia that the land in dispute is an ancestral property and they are members...
Radha Through State Vs. Khajan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC341; 1994(2)WLC601; 1994(2)WLN114
Arun Madan, J.1. The aforesaid three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 11th February, 1992, passed by Shri Mahesh Singh Tanwar, Special Judge (Atrocities Court), Addl. Sessions, Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 31/90, State v. Khajan Singh and Ors., whereby he convicted each of the accused-appellants for offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo one years' rigorous imprisonment and--fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of them was ordered to further undergo three month's simple imprisonment. The learned Trial Court however, acquitted the accused Khajan Singh for the offences under Sections 376, 406 IPC and other two accused Sikandar and Smt. Jethi for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Since these appeals arise out of the same judgment and are connected matters, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Appeal No. 161/92 has been filed by Smt. Radha through the State for enhancement of sentence of the acc...
Shrwan Kumar Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ337
R.S. Verma, J.1. All these three appeals (Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 158 and 159 of 1986 filed by Shrwan Kumar and 4 of 1987 filed by Manni Devi) are directed against a common award dated 22.5.1986, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in claim case Nos. 101 and 118 of 1982. Since these appeals arise out of common award and self-same accident, they have been heard together by common consent and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly stated, the case of Shrwan Kumar is that on 7.1.1982 at 4 p.m. he was driving a motor cycle bearing No. RRL 2649 and was proceeding from Jaipur to Sushilpura on Jaipur-Ajmer Road; one, Jagdish was riding pillion of the motor cycle. It is pleaded that when the motor cycle crossed Amaani Shaw Nalah it was collided by bus RRB 6022 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'RSRTC'). This bus was being driven by Poonam Chand. The case of Shrwan Kumar is that the bus was being driven by Poonam Chand in a ...
Shrawan Kumar and Smt. Manni Devi and ors. Vs. Rsrtc and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC637
R.S. Verma, J.1. All these three appeals (Civil Misc, Appeal Nos. 158/86 & 159/86 filed by Shrawan Kumar, and 4/87 filed by Smt. Manni Devi and Ors.) are directed against a common award dated the 22nd May, 1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Claim Case Nos. 101/82 & 118/82. Since these appeals arise out of common award and self-same accident, they have been heard together by common consent and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly stated, the case of Shrawan Kumar is that on January 7, 1982 at 4 p.m. he was driving a motor-cycle bearing number RRL 2649 and was proceeding from Jaipur to Sushilpura on Jaipur-Ajmer Road; one Jagdish was riding pillion of the motor-cycle. It is pleaded that when the motor cycle crossed' Amanni Shaw Nalah' it collided with Bus, RRB 6022 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, RSRTC). This bus was being driven by Poonam Chand. The case of Shrawan Kumar is that the bus was being driven by...
Mageria Daily Wages Workers Union and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1994
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ389Raj; 1995(1)WLC706
ORDERP.K. Palli, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Union of the Labourers and petitioner No. 2 is its President and in this petition, they have claimed the minimum wages to be paid to the labourers who were employed for carrying out the projects under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna and the labourers were employed in the present case for two works, i.e. construction of boundary wall of Primary School at Akhalon Ki Dhani and for construction of incomplete boundary wall of the Primary School at Dodiyal. The order in this respect of the District Rural Development Agency, Jodhpur dated May 2, 1992 has been placed as Annex. 1 on record. It is stated that the labourers that were working on daily rate basis on the famine relief works under the above said scheme were denied the basic minimum wages. The work commenced on these two works from June 6, 1992 and completed on July 15, 1992 and the members of the petitioner Union had been employed for the works listed at Section Nos. 85 and 96 of Annex. 1.2. T...
Jodhpur Woollen Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ769
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. These eleven revision petitions involve a common question of law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioner No. 1, Jodhpur Woollen Mills Limited, Jodhpur, is a body corporate registered under the Indian Companies Act and was engaged in manufacturing of woollen threads at Jodhpur. Petitioner No. 2, Mr. Subhash Kankaria is the Joint Managing Director while petitioner No. 3 Mr. S.G. Kale is the Commercial Officer of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1, under para No. 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, was required to pay the employer's contribution including the employees' contribution after deducting the same from their salary, within fifteen days of the close of every month. The petitioners, though deducted the employees' contribution from their wages during the period from March, 1984 to December, 1986 and deposited the employees' contribution but did not deposit the employer's contribution and, thus, comm...
Prakash Alias Omprakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3019; 1994(1)WLN646
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Appellant Prakash alias Omprakash was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumngarh, Camp Sangaria, who by his judgment dated 31-1- 1990 convicted him for the offences under Sections 302 and 307, IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to further undergo S.I. for one month under the first count and to four years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to further suffer one month's S.I. under the second count. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh acquitted co-accused Bhaga and Krishna of the offences under Sections. 302 r/w arid 307/34, IPC. Against his conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The facts of this case can be recaptitulated within a narrow compass. It appears that on the next day of Holi festival, which fell on 16th March, 1987, at about 1.30 PM deceased Khetpal purchased a bottle of country liquor. He was going towards his field situated near the Johad ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »