Rajasthan Court April 1995 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.
Gajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3347; 1995(3)WLC635; 1995(2)WLN31
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23rd July, 1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby he allowed the application dated 23-5-1994 filed under Section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short, 'the Act') by the D. I. G., B. S. F., Bikaner (non-petitioner No. 2) and directed that the accused-petitioner be handed over to the competent authority for being tried by the Security Force Court and discharged his bail bonds.2. Stated in succinct the relevant facts are that the petitioner-Gajendra Singh C. T. No. 8600-80051 is posted in 06 Battery 1044, Border Security Arti Regiment, B. S. F., Bikaner. While he was absent without leave, on the FIR dated 18-2-1993 lodged by one Chandan Singh, a criminal case was registered against him at Police Station, Mandore Distt. Jodhpur. After investigation, the S. H. O. filed a challan against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 452, 307 and 323 IPC in the Co...
Simrath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3525; 1995(3)WLC601; 1995(2)WLN29
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 21st March 1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer, whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal and maintained his conviction for the offences underSection 304A and 279 I.P.C. and sentence for six months simple imprisonment and three months simple imprisonment respectively recorded by learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, Barmer by his judgment dated 3-12-1994.2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 25-12-1988 at about 7 PM, petitioner while driving truck No. RJC 4903 on the Barmer-Sindhari Road rashly and negligently hit the cycle, which deceased Chatarsingh aged about 35 years, was driving and caused injury to the latter who died instantaneously on the spot. On the report of PW 6 Veersingh, FIR Ex. P-5 was drawn at Police Station, Barmer at 7.30 PM on the same day. After usual investigation, the police submitted the challan before learned trial Magistrate against the...
S.C. Sharma Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC498; 1995(2)WLN532
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under: The petitioner was transferred to Baran as Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department and he took charge of his psot 6-1-1981. Prior to his posting in Baran, his prdecessor had in vited tenders for certain digging work. The orders in response to those tenders could be placed upto 14-3-1981. On 17-7-1981, a note was prepared by Shir AK Kulshreshtha, Upper Divison Clerk (UDC) in the office of the petitioner, for inviting tenders for the work in question and that note was forward by the Divisional Accountant to the petitioner, who issued orders for inviting the tenders for the said work. The rates in the subsequent tenders so received were higher than the rates which were quoted in the tenders invited by the predecessor of the petitioner with the result that the Government suffered a loss of Rs. 86,058.85 p. In the said note no mention was made about the fact that the tenders had already been invited for the...
Ram Awatar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC590; 1995(2)WLN529
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The petitioner is working as Male Nurse Gr.II at Primary Health Centre, Sirsi District Jaipur. His wife Smt. Mithlesh Gupta fell sick and was examined by Dr. Hemant Malhotra, who was of the view that she was suffering from Chronic Myeloid Leckamie disease and was advised for being given injection Interferon A Chemotheraphy which was essential for treatment. The injections are very costly and the petitioner sent a letter to the Chief Medical and Health Officer for giving him advance amount for the purpose of purchasing the injections abovesaid and other medicines which are essential for the treatment of his wife as advised by the treating doctor. On receipt of the said letter, the Medical and Health Department of the State of Rajasthan (the respondent No. 1) wrote to the Financial Advisor of the department vide letter dated 8.11.1994 (Annx. 1) to forward the opinion of the medical board along with the letter sent by the petitioner. Vide order dated 9.12.1994 medical b...
Virendra Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC719; 1995(1)WLN580
Arun Madan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14,16, 21 and 31(d) of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has challenged the verbal order of retrenchment dated 1st March, 1989, whereby the services of the petitioner, who was appointed as a Beldar on daily wage basis, were terminated by the respondents without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or even issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as Beldar on daily-wage basis @ Rs. 14/- per day, on 1-2-87 in the office of the respondents at Bharatpur and he was under the charge of Assistant Engineer.PWD Sub-Division, Nadbai, District Bharatpur. During the period 1.2.87 till March, 1989 the petitioner was made to work with artificial breaks in service. I...
Ranjita Vs. Supdt. of Police Tonk and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1485; 1995(3)WLC398; 1995(2)WLN396
ORDER1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been moved by Ranjita daughter of Shri Jeet, through her mother Smt. Rampyari. Her age is 14 years. It has been alleged that she was kidnapped from Jai Singhpura on 7-2-95 by respondent No. 2, Tosheef Khan of Bombay and a report, in the form of an application, about kidnapping was made to S. P. Tonk on 10-2-95, but no action was taken. Lateron the parents of Ranjita came to know that some social organisations got her recovered from the illegal possession of respondent No. 2, Tosheef Khan and she has now been kept at Children Home, respondent No. 3. The efforts of getting the petitioner released from the Children Home, Bombay failed. The details of efforts made by the parents of petitioner and the relatives have not been mentioned and we do not know whether any proceedings were taken in any Court or not? It has been stated that the detention of Ranjita in Nari Niketan/Children Home at Bombay is illegal as it curtails her right of life and liberty....
Sukha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1283; 1995(2)WLN90
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated, July 6, 1994 of the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No. 315/92, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 307 I. P. C. and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction of the appellant and he restricted his arguments on two points. The first contention was that the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. was not made out from the facts and circumstances of the case, specially in the absence of medical opinion that the injuries sustained by the injured Makhan Lal were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The second submission was with regard to quantum of sentence. As the learned counsel has not challenged conviction of the appellant, as then facts ...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Addl. Transport Commissio ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC741; 1995(2)WLN154
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This order will dispose of all the above numbered writ petitions as identical question of law is involved in each of them.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a point before me that the imposition of penalty under Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 is not justified, it is submitted that the petitioner is Gujarat State undertaking and was submitting the returns as required under the Act timely. It is also submitted that the tak amount in accordance with the return was paid. The return which was submitted was having a note in respect of those days where the vehicle was not plied and the reasons were also given thereof Under Rule 25 (b) of the Rules3. Mr. A.k. Bhandari, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that in the present case though the returns were filed and the tax in accordance with returns was also deposited, but it was incomplete because the full special road tax which was required to be deposited under Section ...
Dungar Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC139; 1995(2)WLN685
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 20.3.80 Annx. 8 to the writ petition passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect and also for quashing the appellate order dated 21.3.83 Annx. 10 to the writ petition upholding the minor penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the instant appeal are that while the petitioner was working as Inspector in Udaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited, Udaipur, he was suspended by the Administrator on 6.7.78 and an enquiry Under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appel) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) was initiatead against him.3. The petitioner was served with a chargesheet along with statement of allegations Annx. 3 to the writ petition and Enquiry Officer was appointed.4. The petitioner s...
Kamal Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC438; 1995(1)WLN592
Arun Madan, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration of this court in the present writ pettion is as to whether the fixation of cut off date i.e. 2nd September, 1972 occurring in the definition of the term 'deceased Government Servant' in Rule 2(e) of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') by which benefit of recruitment to the members of the family of deceased Government servant while dying in service is limited only to the members of the family of the government servant dying on or after cut off date as referrred to above, i.e. 2nd September, 1972 ?.2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ pettion are that the Late father of the petitioner was appointed on work charge basis by Public Health Engineering Department (for short 'PHED') (respondent No. 3) but later on he was fixed in his regular pay scale. The petitioner's father died on duty on 14.7.1969 while...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »