Rajasthan Court November 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.
Kana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC654; 1997(2)WLN607
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard Mr. S.S. Rathore-amicus curie on behalf of the petitioner and the learned P.P. Mr. M.L. Goyal.2. Admit, Issue notice to the respondent.3. Mr. M.L. Goyal learned P.P. accepts notice for the respondent State.4. Kana Ram who is an illiterate person submitted a typed application Dated 16.11.1995 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court at Jaipur Bench, He (Kana Ram) has put up his thumb impression in the said application which was treated as a Misc. Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by this Court. The learned Counsel Shri R.S. Rathore was appointed as Amicus Curie to assist the Court on behalf of Shri Kana Ram.5. It is stated in the application by the petitioner that he was kidnaped by accused persons Bhagirath and Others on 25.6.1995 and an attempt to commit his murder was also made by sharp edged weapon. In the said incident, 6 injuries were received by him, not only that his both hands were literaly cut. The photo-graph of Kana Ram is also along wit...
Shankar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC730; 1997(2)WLN600
Arun Madan, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and also learned Public Prosecutor for the State.2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties, briefly stated, are that the complainant petitioner Shankar Singh had filed a Criminal Complaint against Gopal Bheya non petitioner No. 2 on 21.12.1995 before the competent court on the grounds inter alia that on the relevant date he was posted as Gardener in Horticulture Department at Udaipur. On 13.12.1995. i.e. the date of occurrence while he was performing his duties at Talabshai Garden, Badi when accused non-petitioner No. 2 started assaulting the petitioner and threw him out of the Garden. The incident was witnessed by Munni Lal and Rameshwar. The learned trial Magistrate after recording the Statements of petitioner and the witnesses adduced before him took cognizance against the accused only for offence under Section 323 IPC, while exonerated him as regard the offence under SC...
Ram Ji Lal Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN565
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.2. This is a case in which the accused was convicted of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to two years, Simple Imprisonment by the trial court with a fine of Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, an appeal was preferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Alwar) and the said Appellate Court vide order dated 26.2.1997, the said appellate court reversed the order of conviction passed against the accused Chagan Singh by the trial court and acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt.3. I have perused both, the order of acquittal as well as the order of conviction. Prima-facie, I am of the view that there have to be very strong and cogent reasons for disturbing the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court and the law is so well settled that if there is one judgment of acquittal while another of conviction. It...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Mahaveer Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC656; 1997(2)WLN574
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd July, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2853/1987. By the aforesaid order the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Dr. Mahaveer Chand and quashed the order dated 5th May, 1986 passed by the appellant under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958).3. The facts necessary, for the disposal of this appeal may be summarised as below:The respondent-petitioner Dr. Mahaveer Chand is an employee of the State Government of Rajasthan. In the year 1981 he was serving as Lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry in S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur. He liked to visit foreign countries and applied for passport. The State Government was requested to issue a 'No Objection Certificate', ...
AyazuddIn @ Munna Khan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC737; 1997(2)WLN604
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Two contentions have been raised in this petition by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nandwana for the petitioner husband.1. That both the courts below have committed error in not accepting the evidence of the husband about the payment of amount towards mehr.2. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded to the wife for maintenance was very excessive.2. Both these contentions have no merits, hence, they are required to be rejected.3. Whether the Mehr amount was paid to the wife is a question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in a matter filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. In fact, there is a bar of Second revision petition under Section 399(2) Cr. P.C., therefore, to circumvent the bar, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this petition is maintainable, then also this Court will not exercise it's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. where there is a concurrent finding of f...
Smt. Bhouti Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC175; 1997(2)WLN605
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the name of Non-petitioner No. 2.2. Permission is granted.3. The name of non-petitioner No. 2 is accordingly deleted from the cause-title of the petition.4. Admit.5. Issue notice to the respondents.6. Mr. M.L. Goyal accepts notice on behalf of N.P.No. 1.7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.8. The petitioner Smt. Bhouti is a widow of deceased Mohru Lal, who is alleged to have been murdered by 6 accused persons including Ram Charan respondent No. 2 herein. His name has already been disclosed in FIR. An application was presented under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner complainant before the learned trial court to take cognizance against the non-petitioner Ram Charan S/o Girraj Meena for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447 and 302 IPC. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 19.4.1995. The petitioner has challenged the said order (Annexure-2...
Lotus Agro Chem and Etc. Etc. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj286; 1997(2)WLN568
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J. 1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment, since the controversy involved is common to all of them. 2. The dispute is with regard to charging of cash security for additional one month instead of bank guarantee or making the payment of bills for 15 days. 3. The submission of learned counsel for thepetitioner is that amendment dt. 24th June, 1997is ultra vires the Indian Electricity Act and in anycase, such an amendment cannot be made applicable to the contracts already entered into by theBoard. It is also contended that under Section 23 ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the charges forenergy could be on the basis of the actual amountof energy supplied by R.S.E.B. and there is nopower under which the provisional collectioncould be made by issuing the bill for 15 days. Themonthly bill could alone is issued. The liabilitywhich has now been created is by the subordinatelegislation which is beyond the competence of thesaid authority. In this r...
Pawan Kumar Vs. Shakuntala
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN567
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner accused has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 18.7.1996 passed by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 92/1996 filed by the respondent complainant Smt. Shakuntala for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') 1981.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner accused Shri A.L. Verma submitted that in this case notice was not served upon the accused, therefore, the trial court could not have taken cognizance as the mandatory provisions of Section 138 of the Act Were not complied with. It is clear from the record of the case that notice was duly given, but the same returned unserved with the postal endorsement. 'not found'. In the case of M/s. Madan and Company v. Wazir Jaivir Chand reported in : AIR1989SC630 the Apex Court while considering the analogous provisions under the Rent Control Act, held that 'a landlord can do to comply with this provisions to post a prepaid registered lett...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›