Rajasthan Court August 1997 Judgments
Harbans Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ433
ORDERAmaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 20th Nov. 96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Regular Complaint No. 36/96. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused-non-petitioner No. 2 of the offences punishable under Section 500 and 501, I.P.C.2-A. The facts relevant for the purpose of dispose of this petition may be summarised as below :- Petitioner Harban Singh filed a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar alleging the commission of offences under Sections 500 and 501, I.P.C. against the non-petitioner No. 2. According to complaint the petitioner is a Lecturer and is in the employment of the State of Rajasthan. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1314
1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr. P.C. against [he judgment dated 11-12-1995 passed by Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, RHJS, Sessions Judge, Pali, in Sessions Case No. 26/93 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused as thereunder:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Mahendra Singh Under Sections 302/34, IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default one month's rigorous imprisonment Under Section 341, IPC Simple imprisonment for 15 days Under Section 435, IPC Two year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default one month's rigorous imprisonment Under Section 201 IPC Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-in default one month's rigorous imprisonment Under Section 4/25 Arms Act six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- in default 15 days' rigorous imprisonment2) Teju Singh Under Sections 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life & a fine of Rs. 250...
Tag this Judgment!Vagata and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ902
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C. against the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, Distt. Jalore dated 22-10-96 by which he ordered to frame charges under Section 498A and 323, I.P.C. and read over and explained to the petitioners.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.3. The brief facts are that Sona Ram filed a FIR at police station Jaswantpura stating therein that his daughter Antri was married to Harchand five years ago. She did not bear any child, therefore, her father-in-law Samartha, mother-in-law Santok and husband Harchand regularly gave beatings to her. They used to assault her and when the cruelty continued, a panchayat was called and compromise was arrived at between both the parties. On 1-5- 96 at about 1 p.m., Samartha, Santok, Harchand, Gawara, Chhagana and Vagata gave severe beatings with lathies to Smt. Antri. The result was that she started bleeding. I...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ716; 1998(3)WLC614
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned counsel Shri Kumbhat for the petitioner and Shri Bhali for the Slate.2. This revision petition is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below convicting the petitioner accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer one year S.I. and pay fine of Rs, 500/-, in default to further under go one month's S.I. and for the offence under Section 279, I.P.C. to suffer six months S.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further under go one month's S.I. which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali. On 20-10-1989 in a road accident life on an innocent child of 5 years, who has not even seen the world property, lost his life because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner accused who was driving a bus on that day. He drove the bus in such an excess speed and in such a rash and negligent manner that he knocked down a pillion ...
Tag this Judgment!Subash Chand JaIn and anr. Vs. Sbbj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj345
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 13-3-1997 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in case No. 52/1994 by which the written statements/replies filed by the petitioners after the transfer of the suit to the Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been ordered to be returned to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had already filed reply in the suit prior to its transfer from the Court of District Judge to the Debt (Tribunal). 2. In order to test the correctness of the order impugned, a slight enumeration of the facts and circumstances of the, case are as follows :- 3. The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, impleaded as respondent herein, filed a civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rupees Twenty Eight lakhs, in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kishagarhbas, Alwar against M/s. India Electronics Ltd. including the petitioners herein who were impleaded as defen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR637(Raj)
P.C. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking extension in the time limit for completing the block assessment of non-petitioner No. 2 in compliance with the order passed by this court on May 16, 1997, in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 337 of 1996.2. The relevant facts, necessary for the disposal of this application, are all stated in the order dated May 16, 1997. The following order was passed on May 16, 1997, in the above miscellaneous petition :'In this view of the matter, I allow this petition in part. The impugned order dated April 30, 1996, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur, is modified to this extent that a sum of Rs. 3,34,000 be refunded to the respondent No. 2 on the conditions specified in the said order and the remaining amount be handed over to the petitioner--Department provided it submits an undertaking that the assessment of the amount in question...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Raj)340
P. C. JAIN, J. :The petitioner has filed this application under s. 482 CrPC seeking extension in the time-limit for completing the block assessment of the non-petitioner No. 2 in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 16th May, 1997 in SB Crl. Misc. Petn. No. 337/96.2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this application, are all stated in the order dt. 16th May, 1997. The following order was passed on 16th May, 1997 in the above miscellaneous petition :'In this view of the matter, I allow this petition in part. The impugned order dt. 30th April, 1996, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Jodhpur is modified to this extent that a sum of Rs. 3,34,000 be refunded to the respondent No. 2 on the conditions specified in the said order and the remaining amount be handed over to the petitioner - Department provided it submits an undertaking that the assessment of the amount in question shall be completed within a period of three months from...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Santosh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ612; 1998(1)WLC90; 1997(2)WLN375
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. By this writ petition the provisions of Section 32A, of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been challenged.2. The petitioner is the wife of Satya Narain who was convicted under Section 22 of the Act for 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lac for the offence under NDPS Act. The appeal against the conviction has also been dismissed. Satya Narain was undergoing the sentence in Central Jail Sabarmati, Ahmedabad and thereafter he was transferred to Central Jail, Bikaner. He was kept in open air camp till 1996 and thereafter was sent back to Central Jail, Jodhpur. The grievance is that the provisions of Section 32A of the Act prohibits remission of sentence. It is ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as in respect of other offences under IPC, where punishment is of 10 years or more, the provisions of remission are applicable. Restricting the provisions by not granted the bail during tri...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj33; 1998(1)WLC494
ORDER1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order dated 9-11-90, Annexure-8, to the writ petition passed by Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika, Jalore, by means of which, construction over the plot in question has been stayed till further order, and the order dated 16-11 -90, Annexure-9 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner was refused a copy of order alleged to have been passed by Collector, Jalore on 9-11 -90 that is now filed as Annexure R-2 to the return. It is prayed by the petitioner that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to execute a registered patta in his favour.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that on 15-8-89 the petitioner submitted an application before the Administrator, Municipal Board, Jalore for allotment of residential Plot in Shivaji Nagar, Jalore, measuring 60' x 60'. The Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika, Jalore, on 4-11-89, informed to the petitioner that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanwarmal Pansari Vs. Churu Wholesale Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd. an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1198Raj; 1998(1)WLC692; 1997(2)WLN385
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Petitioner claims that he is a salesman and working with the respondent Society, which is registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter called 'the Act'. He claims the pay scale of Rs. 1020.50 per month, a revised grade of salesman which is paid to other salesmen, who are similarly situated on the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India.2. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the society is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier filed three writ petitions, details of which have been mentioned in earlier part of the writ petition, as the said writ petitions had been entertained by this Court and respondents never raised any objection, the respondents cannot raise this plea nor the Court can find him non-suited only on this ground. It is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »