Rajasthan Court January 1997 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.
Raghunath Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2219; 1997(1)WLN53
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. In this ease a charge-sheet for prosecuting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 was filed in the Court of the trial Magistrate on 29-7-1977. The charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against him on 12-2-1979. It is reported that the prosecution closed their evidence on 10-7-1996. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Assistant Public Prosecutor who was In-charge of the prosecution, moved an application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. requesting the learned Magistrate to summon Amarnath Purohit and Ratanalal as the witnesses in this case. This application was allowed to the extent of Ralanlal witness only. The said Ratanlal was also examined. It is reported that the accused was to be examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on 11 -7-1996. But the Assistant Public Prosecutor again moved an application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. for summoning three more witnesses namely, Omprakash Sharma, Ram Gopal and Shy am Lal. Out ...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Hajari Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj71; 1997(1)WLN27
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal and the twenty-one appeals mentioned in Schedule 'A', arise out of the judgment dated 9-10-1995 passed by the learned single Judge. The controversy raised, grievances expressed and the relief sought are the same and as such they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. For the convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 373 of 1996 (State of Rajasthan and others v. Hazari Ram) are taken into consideration.2. The land of petitioner-respondent Hazari Ram as well as the land of other petitioner-respondents in these appeals, in which they were holding the Khatedari rights, were acquired by the State Government for Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner. To rehabilitate these persons and the families, who were dispossessed from the Mahajan Field Firing Range, Bikaner, a Notification No. F. 3(8) GSR. 162/Reve./Col./81 dated 23-11-1985 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary Part IV-C (1) dated 10-1-...
Pyara and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1065; 1997(2)WLC53; 1997(1)WLN42
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-9-94 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34, 342, 325/34 and 323/ 34, IPC and sentenced each of the accused-appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC; six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 342, IPC; one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 325/34, IPC and 323/34, IPC each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Appellants Pyara, Uda, Shambhu and Gopi were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh for keeping Nathu Khan in a wrongful co...
Tola Ram and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2156; 1997(1)WLN17
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State and perused, the record.2. All the three petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. are directed against the order dated 23-5-1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 71/1993: State v. Munna Ram and Ors. Therefore, all the three petitions should be disposed of by one common order.3. By the impugned order dated 23-5-1995 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur accepted the application dated 23-5-1995 submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and directed that all the four accused persons should be apprised of the accusation under Sections 223 and 225A(b), I.P.C. and the case should be retried. It is against this order that these petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. have been filed by the accused petitioners.4. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below :Two person...
Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2718; 1997(2)WLC20; 1997(1)WLN4
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30-5-96 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment-one preferred by the appellant through jail and the other is a represented one and relate to the same incident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Appellant Laxman, along with one Megha, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand for committing the murder of his brother Bhima near the holy-place of Dana Baba situated in village Khekhadiya (district Rajsamand). The case of the prosecution was that in the morning of 26-11-95, PW 1 Dewa saw the deadbody of Bhima Bhil lying near Dana Baba holy place of worship. ...
Sawai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN33
B.R. Arora, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.1.82 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted appellant Sawai Ram for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Accused-appellant Lahru was convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 323 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. ...
Anil Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997WLC(Raj)UC102; 1997(1)WLN25
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. On a negative report of the police Dated 5.5.1991, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A IPC in the present case and summoned the petitioners as accused thereof vide order dated 31.10.1991. The petitioner put in appearance in the court on 27.4.1993. The learned Magistrate, without complying and without following the requirements of Sections 207 and 238 Cr. P.C. framed the charges for the offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioners. The charges so framed by the learned Magistrate were quashed by this Court on petitioner's petition bearing S.B. Misc. Petition No. 674/93, on 10.2.1995. This court sent the matter back to the learned Magistrate with a direction to first deliver the copies of documents on the record of the police report to the petitioners and after hearing them for charge to pass appropriate orders. The learned Magistrate appears to have complied with such directions of ...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Mst. Tikko Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC1; 1997(1)WLN11
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.95 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed and set-aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons compensation & Rehabilitation Act, 1954 and directed the respondents in the writ petition (the present appellants) to restore the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months and if any other person has been allotted the aforesaid land then the said allotment shall be treated as cancelled and its possession shall be restored to the petitioner after ejectment of the occupant who is in possession of the said land.2. Shri Ped Singh-a claimant-was allotted 12 Bighas 10 Biswas of the agricultural land situated in Square No. 41 of Chak 14-S of tehsil Sri Ganganagar as a rehabilitation Grant payable to ...
K.T. Building Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (A), C. Ex. and Cus ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(94)ELT59(Raj)
1. Since it is a short matter and the prayer is only for getting an appeal disposed of at an early stage, we directed the learned counsel appearing for Union of India to take notice. He takes notice.2. Heard.3. The complaint of the petitioner is that it filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 with an application for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of the amount of the liability found due against it. The complaint is that neither the application for exemption is being disposed of nor the appeal is being fixed for hearing. The matter has been further aggravated for the petitioner because the recovery of the amount due is being effected by taking coercive measures, according to him. The petitioner, now, desires that its appeal, application for exemption or stay application should, now, be heard within a reasonable time and disposed of so that if it has to get any relief, that it would be able to get at an early date.4. I...
Dr. Shiv Kant Pandey and anr. Vs. Ishwari Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj155; 1997(1)WLC484
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Crucial legal question which arises for consideration in this revision petition, is, whether carbon copy of a document is not admissible as primary evidence in View of Sections 35 and 26 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,2. This question emerges in the following circumstances :--(i) Plaintiff-non-petitioner (for short plaintiff) instituted a suit against the defendant petitioners (for short defendants) in the trial Court for the recovery of possession of house in question making averments to the effect that the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale for the said house in favour of the defendants and actual physical possession of the house was given by the plaintiff to the defendants and certain amount was received by him as part performance towards the payment of the sale consideration. But as the defendants have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement it has become void and the plaintiff is entitled 16 possess the said house with c...