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.
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Dhanraj Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC369; 1995(2)WLN162
Arun Madan, J.1. Both the above-named appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, arise out of the order, dated 7th October, 1992 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3170/1987, one filed by the State of Rajasthan and the other by Gopal Lal Sharma and others. Since both the above appeals arise out of a single order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, they are disposed of by this Single common order.2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid two appeals are that Dhanraj, respondent in Appeal No. 870/93 who was petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3170/87 viz Gopal Lal Sharma and others and the appellants in appeal No. 352/93 were selected for appointment to the post of Labour welfare Officers subject to the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Labour and Welfare Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') in order of merit as per the list prepared by Rajasthan...
Murari Lal and ors. Vs. Abhimanyu Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN594
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. Heard.2. The order has been complied with and the petitioner has been paid his dues. However, it is not disputed that vide the judgment dated 8th November, 1993, the respondents were directed to do the needful within six months from that date, but the order was complied with only after notices of this contempt petition dated 2nd Janujary, 1995, were served on the respondents.3. It is, therfore, dircted that the respondents should also pay to the petitioner, the costs of and incidental to this contempt petition, which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.4. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly....
Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3111
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dt. 27th April, 1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh in sessions case No. 2/87 convicting and sentencing both the accused under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC for imprisonment for life. He proceeded to convict them under Section 201 read with Section 34 for one year RI.2. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and alleged extra judicial Confession made by one of the accused persons. There are no eyewitnesses and the deceased met homicidal death by violent means.3. Rakesh, Ramnath and Kailash were prosecuted for commission of murder of one Ramesh in the night of 20-10-86. According to the prosecution, deceased Ramesh was killed by three accused persons with the means of bricks and stones. The prosecution claims that in the night of 20th October, 1986, three accused persons killed deceased Ramesh and buried his dead body to conceal the commi...
Arjun Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ577; 1995(3)WLC748; 1995(2)WLN123
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 12-2-88 passed in Sessions Case No. 25/85 by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh convicting the accused appellants Under Sections 302/34 I.P.C, and 307/34 I.P.C, and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. For offence Under Section 302/34, the sentence was imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. For the offence Under Section 307 I.P.C, seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story, stated in brief is that at about 6 in the morning of 22nd August 1983, the incident occurred at village Hardayalpura, in District Hanumangarh. It is alleged by the prosecution that at that time when Bhagirath was going to answer the call of nature, was shot at by Hanuman, as a result of which he died. The i...
Maji Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ916
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The appellant Maji Khan and two others, Sher Singh s/o Inder Singh and Abdul Sattar s/o Samad Khan were presented on the charge under Section 302, I.P.C, in the alternative under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. The trial Court has acquitted the appellant on the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C, but convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The other two accused persons were acquitted of both the charges under Section 302 of the I.P.C, as well as under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with Two Hundred Rupees fine. This conviction and sentence is under challenge in this case.2. The prosecution case, in short, was that the appellant in an intoxicated state came on the spot where Madan Gopal Pandey. Prabhu Modi, Dev Raj and Fagi Maharaj were sitting. He was accompanied by four other persons, out of them appellant came forward and extracted a pole from 'Paliya' and abusing Madan Gopal and others sitting there,...
Ram Nath and anr. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC365; 1995(2)WLN119
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment dt. 27th April, 1988 passed by the additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh in sessions case No. 2/87 convicting and sentencing both the accused under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for imprisonment for lise. He proceeded to convict them under Section 201 read with Section 34 for one yeear R.I.2. The entire case in bassed on circumstantial evidence and alleged extra judicial confession made by one of the accused persons. There are no eye-witnesses and the deceaseal met homicidal death by violent means.3. Rakesh, Ramnath and Kailash were prosecuted for comission of murder of one Ramesh in the night of 20.10.86. According to the prosecution, deceased Ramesh was killed by three accused persons with the means of bricks and stones. The prosecution claims that in the night of 20th October, 1986, three acused prsons killed deceased Ramesh and buried his dead body to conceal the ...
Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC211; 1995(2)WLN122
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Notice was given to learned public prosecutor who accepted the same.2. Heard. Perused the impugned order dt. 25.1.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby he dismissed the application filed on behalf of accused-petitioner for calling the case diary during the cross examination of PW 16 Devilal, Investigating Officer.3. I have also perused the statement of PW. 16 Devilal recorded by learned trial Judge. The Investigating Officer cannot be forced to make use of the case diary for refreshing his memory. As per provisions of Section 2(3) of Cr. P.C. neither the accused nor his agent is entitled to call for the case diary nor he or his advocate is entitled to see it merely because the case diary is referred to by the Court. The case diary can only be used, if the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory or if the court uses the same for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, because for such matter the provision of Section 161 Cr. P.C and...
Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC461; 1995(1)WLN356
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.4.89 passed by learned Add). Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, in Sessions case No. 48 of 1984, convicting the accused Madan Lal of an offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life.2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused attacked the order impugned on several grounds. It was submitted by her that the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is unsustainable in law as it is based on surmises and conjectures, not supported or warranted by the evidence on record. According to the learned Counsel, the entire chain of circumstantial evidence was not proved and, therefore, conviction was not permissible in law. It was contended by the learned Counsel that even if the entire evidence as led by the prosecution is accepted, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that it was the accused alone who caused intentional homicidal death of deceased. The learned Counsel a...
B.M. Raina Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC471; 1995(2)WLN174
Arun Madan, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 read with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, was field by the petitioner who retired from Government service on 31st July, 1988 from the post of Additional Director, Agriculture (Extension) in the pay scale of Joint Director in terms of order dated 13th July, 1981 read with order dated 5.1.1987 Annex-1 and 2 respectively. The facts, as briefly stated, are that the petitioner discharged his duties as Additional Director, Agriculture (Extension) right from 13.7.81 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.7.88 and it is stated that he was discriminated by the Department in the matter of fixation of pay-scale since the post of Additional Director, Agriculture (Extension) is a post higher to that of Joint Director, Agriculture and the grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that he discharged his duties , on the p...
Mahesh Chandra Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC186; 1995(2)WLN127
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. The learned public Prosecutor has submitted the case diary and the record of the final report.2. Heard. Perused the relevant record.3. This petition field under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 19.11.1990, whereby the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandal took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 182 IPC and issued summons to ensure his attendance.4. It appears that the petitioner-Mahesh Chandra Mehta was posted as Tehsildar, Mandal. He sent a written letter dated 7/11th December, 1989 to the S.H.O., Bagaur alleging that as per the report of Patwari Halka, one dry babool tree and nine green trees, which were standing on the pal of 'Bilanam Talab', khasra No. 250, village Samrathpara, have been cut and contractor Shakur Mohd. has taken away seven trees by cutting and felling them and that three trees were lying on the site. It was further mentioned that those trees were alleged to have b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »