Rajasthan Court February 1997 Judgments
Saroj Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC422; 1997(1)WLN209
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.9.89 by a writ of certiorari on the ground that it is illegal and unsustainable in law.2. The petitioner is employed as a Physical Instructor in Soorsagar Girls School, Bikaner, where she was working in September' 89, when on 14th September' 89 First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on the allegations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Amongst the other allegations made in the First Information Report, one allegation was that the petitioner had illicit relationship with Kishan Lal and, therefore, both of them, with the common object and intention of removing permanently the wife of Kishan Lal, murdered her. The petitioner was arrested on 23rd September 1989 and was released on bail on 29th September' 89. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed and the petitioner is being prosecuted under...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC668; 1997(1)WLN214
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Sharma has restricted his challenge only to the order passed by the Revenue. Board, Annex. 5, dated 25.9.87. The Additional Collector by his order dated 28.3.84, Annex. 4, after making necessary enquiry and hearing the petitioners on notice, Annex. 3, came to the conclusion that the assessee was holding 343 bighas 9 biswas of land on 1.4.66, whereas, he was entitled to keep 35 standard acres i.e equivalent to 312 bighas and 10 biswas. Thus, 30 bighas 19 biswas land was declared as surplus land. Aggrieved by that order the State Govt. preferred an appeal No. 626/84 before the Board of Revenue under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Imposition of ceiling on Agricultural holding Act, 1973 (for short the Act). In appeal the decision was challenged on several grounds. But, the same was allowed only on one ground as the Revenue Board found that the number of family members were 5 on 1.4.1966 and not 6 as held by the Addl. Collector. Theref...
Tag this Judgment!Rafiq Ahmed Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC410; 1997(1)WLN204
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This petition was filed before this Court on 13.7.90 by the petitioner. In para H/i/a it was initially prayed that:the ACRs for the year 1984-85, 1986-87, and 1988-89 are all illegal and the same be quashed, so also the orders rejecting representations of the petitioner against the adverse entries.2. In para G/i/b it was prayed that:respondents may be directed not to place before the Departmental Promotion Committee the adverse entries aforesaid.3. In para G/i/c it was prayed that:It for any reason adverse entries are placed before the DPC and DPC rejects the Candidature of the petitioner and consequent appointments are made to the exclusion of the petitioner the orders making appointments by promotion made may all be declared invalid and may be quashed and the Respondents be directed to give to the petitioner all benefits consequential thereto.4. On 16.7.90 this Court (Justice Milap Chand Jain, as he then was) issued notice to the other side on the main writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Om Singh Vs. State of Rajaslhan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2419
P.C. Jain, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Churu by his judgment dated 31-3-1993 has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence Under Section 302, IPC nd sntenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The prosecution case, as revealed during the trial, maty be stated as follows. On 19-7-1992, at about 5.30 p.m., Samundra Singh was ploughing his field situated in Jasrajsarohi. His mother Mst. Bhanwari (PW 1) and his son Babu Singh (PW 9) were also there. It is alleged that the accused, who is the younger brother of deceased. Samundra Singh, came there and there was some altercation between the deceased and the accused-appellant with regard to the partition of the land. The accused got enraged and dealt a kassia blow on Samundra Singh's head followed by several blows on his body as a result of which Samundra Singh fell down. Mst. Bhanwari immediately came to the rescue of Samundra Singh a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Unnikrishnan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC464; 1997(1)WLN201
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner, who was initially joined the Border Security Force as Constable on 27.8.1974, was later on posted as Constable Nursing Assistant during the year 1984. While in service he was charged for having committed an offence under Section 40 of the Border Security Force Act vide charge-sheet dated 14.12.1994 and was tried by the Summary Security Force Court on 6.3.1995. Summary Security Force Court found him guilty of the offence and he was punished with the penalty of dismissal from service. Copy of the order of dismissal is attached as Annex. P. 1 to the writ petition, which reads as under:SENTENCE BY THE COURTTaking all these matters into consideration, I now sentence the accused No. 740320635 Rank Constable Name R. Unnikrishnan of HQ R & C Frontier BSF Jodhpur to be dismissed from the service.Signed at HQR &G; Frontier this 6th day of March '95BSF Jodhpur Sd/xxxxx6.3.95(R.C. SAXENA) AS/COMNY/OC TROOPECOMMANDANTHOLDING THE TRIAL2. The contention of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Ummar Mohammad Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN199
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. On a report lodged by the petitioner the police submitted a report Under Section 173 Cr. P.C. against Phool Singh non-petitioner and Noor Mohammad and Surjit for offences Under Section 323, 427 IPC and 3 of Prevention of Damages Property Act. On trial the learned Magistrate acquitted Noor Mohammad and Surjit Singh but convicted Phool Singh non-petitioner for offences Under Section 323, 427 IPC and Under Section 3 of Prevention of Damages Property Act but instead of sentencing him to any kind of imprisonment at that stage of the proceeding directed his release on probation Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner, who was the complainant in the police case as well as non-petitioner Phool singh preferred their appeals Under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act before the learned Sessions Judge who by his impugned order set aside the conviction of non-petitioner Phool Singh and acquitted him of the offences he had been committed. The appe...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Chand and anr. Vs. Khuman Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj194
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The suit premises belongs to the respondent landlord and that is in occupation of the defendant-appellants (tenants). There are two adjoining shops having two different numbers but separated by a stone wall, one is in the occupation of the respondent-landlord himself and the other in the occupation of the defendant- tenants, both shops owned by the respondent. As per Annex. P/8, the size of both the shops is 18' 6' x 7' 6'. In one of the shops, the respondent-landlord is carrying on the business of making and selling shoes whereas in the adjoining shop the appellant-tenants are carrying on business. Admittedly the appellants are tenant in the demised premises.2. The respondent-landlord filed suit for ejectment of the appellants from the shop situated in the city of Jodhpur at Tabela Bazar, Sumer Market on the allegations that the shop was required by the landlord for the use of his son Devi Lal who would settle his business of selling skin from the demised premises....
Tag this Judgment!Bablu @ Mohd. Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: 1997WLC(Raj)UC355; 1997(1)WLN197
1. At the request of Shri H.P. Singh; the learned Counsel for the petitioner this case was taken in Chambers.2. Shri Ratan Singh Dy. S.P., Fatehpur, produced Ms. Kavita Sharma before us, We interrogated her and also gave an opportunity to petitioner-Bablu @ Mohd. Ali to talk to her and both of them had conversation with each other in our presence.3. The statement of Ms. Kavita Sharma was recorded but during the course of her statement, she started weeping. Therefore we thought it fit to give sufficient opportunity to her to compose herself and the case was adjourned till 12.45 P.M. Ms. Kavita Sharma was directed to remain in Chambers and nobody from either side was allowed to meet her.4. At 12.45 P.M. again hearing in the case was resumed. We are satisfied that Ms. Kavita Sharma is now fully composed and is in a mentally fit condition to resume her statement. Accordingly her statement was resumed and recorded.5. Ms. Kavita Sharma has deposed that her date of birth is 1.11.1977, that sh...
Tag this Judgment!Saleem Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: II(1998)DMC605
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Should this Court invoke inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case of matrimonial offences not compoundable under law, is the crucial question which arises for determination in this petition.2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances:(i) Smt. Ulfat Bano was married to petitioner Saleem but their marriage did not p~ove successful. Sarafat Ali, father of Smt. Ulfat Bano instituted FIR against the petitioner Saleem and his parents Vasir Ahmed and Smt. Razia. Police Station Kotwali, Sikar submitted charge-sheet against them under Sections 498A, 406 and 323, IPC in the Court of Civil Judge (J D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. (ii) During the pendency of Criminal Case No. 57/1996, a compromise was sentered into between the informant Sarafat Ali, his daughter Smt. Ulfat Bano and the petitioners Saleem, Vasir Ahmed and Smt. Razia. There- fore a joint application was filed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Azar Ahmad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1822; 1997(2)WLC712; 1997(1)WLN191
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 24-9-1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby he set aside the order dated 17-6-85 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur Under Section 258, Cr. P.C. read with Section 20(3) of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act') stopping the criminal proceedings for the offences Under Sections 120, 121 of the Indian Railways Act and Under Section 323, IPC against the petitioner and co-accused-Chandra Bhan and releasing them.2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that on 13-12-1983 at 12-20 a.m. complainant-Jagdish, who was posted as Rakshak, Railway Protection Force, O.P. Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur submitted a written report to S.H.O. G.R.P. Station, Jodhpur to the effect that on 12-12-83 he was on duty from 16 hours to 24 hours in Railway Yard of Bhagat Ki Kothi Railway Station, that since one train had been cancelled at the direction of Train Guard, he had gone ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »