Rajasthan Court January 1998 Judgments
Dharam Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3566; 1998WLC(Raj)UC422
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in Cr. Appeal No. 11/87 (33/85) by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitionerand confirmed the judgment dated 29-1-1985 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar in Cr. Case No. 115/81. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had convicted the accused petitioner for the offences under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred as 'the PFA Act') and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PP at length and have gone through the record.3. The facts may be narrated in brief. On 14-9-1981 Ram Gopal Sharma, Food Inspector, inspected the shop of M/s. Dharam Chand Narendra Kumar Chhabra Kirana Merchant, Srikaranpur at about 4 p.m. Dharam Chand was prese...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Revti and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC580; 1998(1)WLN86
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Respondents no. 4 and 5 Tejaram and Chawli are the son and daughter of decease plaintiff Hanuman and the petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Kanaram. Admittedly, the property in dispute belonged to Budharam, who had two sons Narain and Baluram. Hanuman plaintiff was the son of Narain and Kana Ram was the son of Baluram. Respondents no. 4 and 5 are legal representatives of Hanuman and petitioners no. 1 to 12 are the legal representatives of Kanaram.3. Hanuman filed a suit for declaration of his title for half share, partition and separate possession of 46.2 Bighas of land situated in Chak 4 PBM, village Padampura, Tehsil Suratgarh. The suit was filed on the allegations that after the death of Budharam, the land devolved in equal share on his sons namely, Narain and Baluram. Narain died in the year 1918 and his half share was m...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC301; 1998(1)WLN100
Arun Madan, J.1. The question which has arisen for consideration and decision by this court in the instant writ petition is as to whether the petitioner who is working in the capacity of Pump-Driver in the Horticulturist wing of Public Works Department (for short 'P.W.D.') Rajasthan, Jaipur, should not be entitled to the pay scale equivalent and admissible for the same post in other departments of the State viz. station, Mines, Geology and Public Health Engineering Department (for short 'P.H.E.D.') at par with said employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work, as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India.2. The facts which are relevant for deciding this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had joined service of State Government in the office of P.W.D., Jaipur on being appointed as Pump Driver in the office of the Superintendent of Gardens, Jodhpur, on 01.07.1962, in the pay scale of Rs. 40-60 p.m. Subsequently the petitioner was fixed in the r...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN110
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner who was appointed as Helper on muster-roll and daily wage basis in Public Health Engineering Department (for short 'PHED') on 1.9.1981 while Executive Engineer of the said department (non-petitioner No. 2) has been taking the work from the petitioner as Assistant Store Munshi, has moved this court by way of instant writ petition for seeking relief that he may be treated as having been promoted from the post of Helper on which he was initially appointed to that of Assistant Store Keeper w.e.f. 27.4.1985 i.e., the date from which he has been continuously discharging his duties to the department as Asstt. Store Keeper and also when the persons junior to the petitioner as per the seniority list placed on the record vide Annexure 6, were promoted on the said post despite their not working as Asstt. Store Keeper on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work which is enshrined in Articles 39(d) read with Article 14, 16, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: I(1998)DMC568; 1998(1)WLN81
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition impugning the order dated August 6,1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereby the charge under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 406, IPC have been framed against the petitioners.2. Few facts are required to be set out at the outset in order to resolve the controversy posed before me. Deceased Savita Gupta was married to petitioner in 1992. It was in August, 1995 she had gone to her parents. After her stay with her parents for about three months, suddenly on November 8,1995 her dead body was found in small water tank located at the ground floor of her parents' house in mysterious circumstances. Dead body of her young daughter was also found in the same tank. Deceased Savita Gupta was reported missing by her brother on November 8,1995 at 8.00 p.m. at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar. Second report was submitted at 2.30 a.m. on November 9,1995 by Anil Kumar, wherein inter alia it was stated that Smt. Savit...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1788
P.C. Jain, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment dated 10-9-1997 of the learned Special Judge, Atrocities on Women and Dowry Cases Court, Bhilwara whereby the accused-appellant Ratanlal was held guilty of the offences under Sections 376, 394 and 307 IPC and was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 376 IPC; to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 394 IPC; and to undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 IPC.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as follows. P.W. 2 Ganpatlal, Up-sarpanch Kotadi while g...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Chautha Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1851
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. None appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner.2. By this petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 1st May, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Revision No. 8/ 94 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 23rd November, 1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sumerpur in Criminal Case No. 326/93 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the non-petitioner and made it payable by the petitioner.3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali has erred in law as well as facts in accepting the revision petition and awarding compensation to the non-petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that Section 457, Cr.P.C. does not provide for award of compensation to the person, who is entitled to possession of the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Bhinwa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3936
ORDERAmaresh ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. None appeared for the non-petitioner No. 2.2. This petition under Section 482 is directed against the order dated 31 st July, ! 996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawa in criminal case No. 342/92 Stale v. Bhinwa Ram and the charge framed against the petitioner under Section 409, IPC. It is prayed by the petitioner that the trial which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawa and all other proceedings relating thereto, be quashed in the interest of justice.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the accused so as to justify the framing of the charge under Section 409, IPC and therefore, the charge framed against the accused and the trial which is pending in the lower Court deserve to be quashed and they am...
Tag this Judgment!Satveer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC171; 1998(1)WLN83
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Can a magistrate, in a case triable by court of Session, summon a person not named in the charge sheet under Section 319 Cr. P.C. and commit him to stand trial alongside the accused is the core question that arises for consideration in the instant petition.2. This question emerges in the wake of circumstances set out below:(i) On the basis of first information report instituted by informant Umrao on Sept. 17, 1994. Police Station Khetri submitted charge sheet under Section 302 IPC. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Khetri against accused Raju @ Rajendra whereas final report under Section 169 Cr. P.C. was filed against the petitioner Satveer.(ii) Learned Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated December 19, 1994 did not accept the final report and took cognizance under Section 302 IPC against the petitioner Satveer and committed him to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri alongwith the accused Raju @ Rajendra.(iii) The petitioner moved an application ...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC22; 1998(1)WLN74
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. In view of the conflicting decisions rendered by the learned Single Judges regarding the ambit and scope of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter as 'the Rules'), the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 25.7.1997, has referred the matter to the Larger Bench for resolving the controversy under proviso (c) to Rule 55 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. The issue referred to reads as under:Whether in a situation where both the spouses, i.e., husband and wife are in Government service and in the event of death of one, the other still remaining in Government service, whether the dependents as defined in the definition of 'family' under Rule 2(f) of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 is entitled to the employment on the ground that be the death of his father or mother, any one case may be, he be treated as a dependent ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »