Rajasthan Court March 1998 Judgments
Prahlad Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLC617; 1998(1)WLN563
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Appellant Prahlad Ram has challenged in this appeal the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in sessions case 'No. 14/81 dated 17.3.1982 whereby the appellant came to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer one year S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to further undergo, three months' S.I.2. Learned Counsel Shri Singhi for the appellants first submitted that the learned trial Judge was wrong in trying the case against the accused, who was juvenile offender as at the time of commission of the offence, he was only 14 years. In Support of his submission, he has pointed out that from the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein according to the accused, his age was 14 years but as per the learned Sessions Judge he was 18. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Raisul v. State of U.P...
Tag this Judgment!Superintending Engg. Zhakam Project Vs. Ramesh Chandra and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC423; 1998(1)WLN334
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.4.1993, contained in Annexure. 18 to the petition, by which the Labour Court allowed the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the I.D. Act) and re-fixed the salary of the respondent workman as in 1986 and 1988 and directed the petitioner to pay the arrears according. By the said impugned order, some amount of gratuity and retrenchment allowance have, also, been directed to be paid.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent-workman had been working with petitioner with effect from 18.9.1968. A voluntary retirement scheme was floated and respondent-workman opted for it and as a consequence his services came to an end in view of the Agreement/Settlement dated 3.12.1988 contained in Annexure. 17 to this petition. The said Settlement provided for the workmen opting for voluntary retirement, retrenchment compensa...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3420
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C, is directed against the order dated 23-2-98 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 81/98 whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the application moved by the accused-petitioner to release Jeep No. RJ-31-C-1072 which was seized by the District Transport Officer, Hanumangarh on 18-2-98 at 2 P.M. at Makkasar at the time of spot checking and the accused-petitioner was found while carrying 7 passengers after realizing fare at the rate of Rs. 4/- per head. The accused-petitioner, admittedly, being the registered owner of the vehicle, did not have any permit to operate his vehicle for transportation of passengers and the same being registered as a private vehicle for his personal use, since the accused-petitioner did not obtain any permit required by the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and, besides, he had also not ...
Tag this Judgment!Nakoda Laminators and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3525
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 and perused the original record of the Criminal Case No. 6897/94 India Photographies Co. Ltd. v. Nakoda Laminator pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur.2. By this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed that the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 6897/94 pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in respect of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 be quashed.3. It appears from the record of the lower court that on 25th April, 1994 the non petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint (Ex. P/37) in which he alleged that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotable Instruments Act had been committed in respect of Cheque No. 203300 dated 17th Feb. 1994 for a sum of Rs. 49...
Tag this Judgment!Poonam Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3407
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 3.2. This petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 9th March, 1995 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 26/95, whereby the Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner attached the disputed property under Sub-section (1) of Section 146, Cr. P.C. on being satisfied that the case was up to emergency. The petition is also directed against the order dated 2nd December, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/93, whereby the revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 9th March, 1995 was passed by the Additional District Magistrate(City), Bikaner.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, the Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Magher Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC267; 1998(1)WLN378
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order dated 16th September, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in criminal original case No. 324 of 1989 State of Rajasthan v. Magher Singh.2. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that PW. 5 Badri Prasad be recalled for the purpose of further examination in order to prove the statement of Surja Ram (deceased), who had expired due to injuries received by him.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on three grounds. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed at the instance of Om Prakash, who was neither the complainant nor a party to the case and on the application of Om Prakash, it was not open to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to exercise the power conferred by powers under...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkea Middle School, Daulatpura Vs. Ramkumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj172
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. Defendant No. 3-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 24-3-1994 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tibi passed in Civil Original Suit No, 5/93 whereby issue No. 4 was decided against the defendant-petitioner.2. Non-petitioners 1 and 2 plaintiffs filed a suit against non-petitioners 3 and 4 and the petitioner seeking declaration that the order passed by non-petitioner No. 4 dated 20-4-1974 is null and void and ineffective and that the plaintiff be delivered possession of the land described in para 12 of the plaint from defendant-petitioner. The plaintiff has alleged in the suit that his father Baluram possessed agricultural land described in para 1 of the plaint. He surrendered the above land in exchange of the land to be allotted by defendant No. 2, District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. Proceedings in respect of the above were initiated and the file was submitted to respondent No. 2 for passing appr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC260; 1999(2)WLC47; 1998(1)WLN573
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by accused appellant Ramesh Singh against the judgment dated 2.3.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No. 30/95 whereby he has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 /-.He has also been convicted under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment on each count.2. Against the accused appellant and 6 others a report was lodged on 10.3.1995 by P.W. 1 Prithvi Singh at Police Station, Rajaldesar at about 11.30 a.m. In the written report P.W. 1 Prithvi Singh reported that his two sisters Nirmala and Suman have been married to the sons of Balu Singh of Village Payli. His sister Nirmala is married to Sumer Singh and Suman is...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sattar Alias Bhindi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4763; 1998(1)WLN377
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Order taking cognizance under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for short the Act) has been called in question by the accused-petitioner by filing the instant petition.2. Mr. S.P. Tyagi, learned Counsel canvassed that only evidence against the petitioner is the confessional statement of coaccused which is not at all a legal or substantive evidence and is inadmissible. Reliance was placed on Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr LR (Raj) 176 : 1995 Cri LJ 2027. Mr. Poddar learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order.3. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the impugned order.4. A look at certified copy of the impugned order annexed with the petition goes to show that the learned trial Court passed the impugned order mechanically. Even the section of the N.D.P.S. Act under which learned Court took cognizance has not been indicated. The order reads thus.^^i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A izF...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Ram Vs. Smt. Manju
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2559
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the file of the case.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 9th December, 96 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal revision No. 21 /96, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition and maintained the order dated 14th February, 95 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in criminal misc. case No. 112/93, whereby he granted maintenance allowance to Smt. Manju.3. It appears that Smt. Manju, non-petitioner in this case, filed a petition Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magis-trate, Nathdwara. In the petition, she has stated that she was married to Tulsi Ram (petitioner in the case) and that after her marriage she gave birth to one boy, who is alive and that she was treated cruelly, therefore, it was not possible for her to live with her husband and tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »