Rajasthan Court February 1998 Judgments
Subhan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1667
Mohd. Yamin, J. 1. This jail appeal of accused appellant Subhan was preferred from jail as learned Sessions Judge, Balotra convicted him under Section 304 Part - II read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to five year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo three months imprisonment. Now he is on bail and represented by counsel.2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that one Ahmed submitted a written report to police station Chauthan on 28-2-80 that Mst. Rani wife of Subhan hung herself on 27-2-80 in the evening and thereby committed suicide. This fact was told to him by Teja son of Deenu at 5 a.m. on 28-2-80. Police registered a case and started inquest. On 3-3-80 Jumma gave a written report that it were Subhan and Smt. Chandi who murdered Mst. Rani by strangulating her. The reason was that Subhan and Smt. Chandi were having illicit relations and they wanted to remove Rani from their way. Case No. 11 was registered at the police station C...
Tag this Judgment!Roopa and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1848
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. Accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur dated 30-4-83 whereby he convicted appellant Roopa under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and Hawji under Section 325, IPC and sentenced him to undergo four year's rigorous imprisonment.2. In short, on 2-11-1982 at about 5 p.m. Hanja was working in his field named Dari Ropada in village Kanela (Vikas Nagar). Roopa an Hawji came there and quarreled with him. Both the appellant fell down Hanja and thereafter Roopa throttled the neck of deceased while Hawji sat on his chest and gave in beatings by fists. It was P. W. 2 Savita, the daughter of deceased, who was grazing her cattle nearby and when Hanja cried 'MAAR DALA - MAR DALA,' she came running at the spot. Some P.W. 1 was also present on the nala where he had come with his bullocks to make them drink water. The accused appellants after seeing Soma and Savita ran away towards their houses. ...
Tag this Judgment!Suja Ram Gurjar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN158
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.1994 contained in Annexure. Rule 2 passed by the respondent No. 2 declaring him ineligible for the post of Sainik General Duty.2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Gurjar community, for which some relaxation has been made for the post of Sainik General Duty. An applicant belonging to the said community, who has passed VIII Class, can apply for the said post if he is above sixteen years and below twenty years of age. The Date of Birth of the petitioner is 1.7.1973. Thus, according to the requirements contained in Annexure P. 6, he was eligible to apply for the said post upto 30.6.1993. The petitioner applied much prior to the said date and he was called for enrollment on 6.12.1992. However on that date he was told that the Transfer Certificate Submitted by the petitioner was not complete as it did not bear the signature of the District Education Officer and he was directed to complete the said formality and ap...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kothari Vs. Vijaya Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj195
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. The defendant has filed this revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 21-11-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No. 8/97 whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 5, C.P.C. was dismissed.2. Material facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows. The non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rupees 4,47,263.93 against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2, which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. In that suit, the plaintiff made averments that the petitioner had pleaded shares, the list of which has been submitted before the Court giving all the necessary particulars. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 14, C.P.C. for production of the said shares. In reply to this application, the plaintiff-Bank said that the pledged shares as mentioned in the plaint, w...
Tag this Judgment!Kajod Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1947; 1998(2)WLC576; 1998(1)WLN199
Mohd. Yamin, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge. Rajasamand in Sessions case No. 12/80 by which he convicted the accused appellant under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The case of the prosecution is that a report was lodged on 1-7-79 at 8 a.m. at police station Railmagra by Geetaaged about 8 years that about 12 or 13 days ago she was going to her field at about 7 a.m. from her house. Kajodia was in his field and was managing. He told Geeta that some thieves were sitting in the way and that if she would go on the path way she would be killed by them. Therefore, she should take the lower path in order to reach the field. He thus misguided Gceta. Geeta taking the lower path way reached near a tree of 'Khakhra' where Kajodia asked her to lie down. She did not obey him and then he caught hold of Geeta and fe...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2498
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 30-10-1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 2/1992 whereby he convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C., 323 and 325 read with Sections 149 and 147, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 302, I.P.C. and one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count. 4 other accused persons were also tried along with the appellant and they were convicted under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and Section 147, I.P.C. and were sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count with fine of Rs. 100/-. The other four accused persons have served out the sentences awarded to them. Therefore, they have not appealed against the Judgment. The accused appellant who was convicted and sentenced under Section 302, I.P.C. has filed the present appeal before this Court.2. The prosecution was initiated on the strength of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Atal Construction Co. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Raj)125
ORDERBy the CourtThe petitioner has moved this court for quashing the notice dated 15-11-1996, which had been issued to the petitioner initiating a proceeding in pursuance of the Circular No. 737, dated 23-2-1996, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes respondent No. 2 herein. It is not necessary to enter into the grounds for such challenge as the said circular already stands quashed by a co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, which is reported in A.S. Construction Co. v. Union of India & Anr. (198) 5 DTC 523 (Raj-HC) : (1998) 144 CTR (Raj) 69 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 642 of 1997, I see no reason to take a different view from the order passed earlier.Accordingly, the impugned notice as contained in Annexure stands quashed and the Assessing Authority is directed to drop the proceeding and start fresh proceeding as per amendment introduced in the year 1997 in proviso to sub-section (2) of section 44AD of the Income Tax Act.The writ petition accordingly stands disposed ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gulabi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC603; 1998(1)WLN147
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge acquitting the accused of the offences with which he was charged.2. The accused was tried for the charges mentioned against him in the judgment and the learned Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded the finding of acquittal by the impugned order. It is this order which is assailed in the present revision petition on the grounds mentioned in the revision petition.3. The position in criminal jurisprudence in relation to acquittal is established since long. Our Jurisprudence which is Anglosaxon Jurisprudence, believes in innocence of the accused till he is found guilty of charges framed against him beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt lies squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution or the complainant, as the case may be and wherever there is failure on the part of the Prosecuting Agency to discharge this burden, accor...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Rajput and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC53; 1998(1)WLN151
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This batch of writ petitions involve identical questions of facts and law and as such, they may be disposed of jointly by a common judgment.2. The principal controversy involved in the petitions relates to interpretation of Notification dated. 11th August. 1995. made by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India making amendment in Rule-4 and Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Slate and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by a Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules. 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules of 1962'), particularly new proviso inserted providing one more chance to a candidate.3. After the Rules of 1962 came into force, direct recruitment to the posts in State and Subordinate Services mentioned respectively in Schedule-I and Schedule-II are governed and made by a combined competitive examination to be conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'The Commission'). Rule-11 (1) d...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj147
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J. 1. The election of the Municipal Board Pipar city was held on 28-8-1995 and 25 ward members were elected from different wards. The Municipal Board consist of 25 members. In the election respondent No. 5 Shri Chimna Ram was elected as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Pipar city. Out of 25 members, 14 ward members gave a written notice of their intention to make no confidence against the Chairman. The Sub-Divisional Officer. Pipar city convened special meeting of the Municipal Board to consider no confidence motion brought by 14 members on 14-5-1997 at 11 a.m. in the office of the Municipal Board Pipar city to he presided over by him. Objection .was raised against the two ward members Shri Mohmmad Khalid and Smt. Sahu Devi that they ceased to be members of Municipal Board and therefore, they should he debarred from attending the meeting. The objection was accepted and they were debarred from attending the meeting. Thereafter no confidence motion was taken up and 15...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »