Rajasthan Court May 1998 Judgments
Laxmikant and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3245
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. By this petition accused petitioners have prayed that the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Banswara on the basis of FIR No. 42/87 may be quashed.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned public prosecutor at length.3. It is relevant to mention the facts of the case in brief. A report was lodged against the petitioners on 14-10-1987 at police station Sallopat Distt. Banswara that a truck loaded with wheat bags belonging to M/s Agarwal Brothers was trans-porting wheat to Gujrat. It was also stated that some of the bags were having a seal of Food Corporation of India and some of the bags had seals of 1984 and the others of 1986, The bags were loaded by one Manohar Lal in five trucks while the wheat belonged to Food Corporation of India. Trucks were checked and it was found that M/s Agarwal Brothers Banswara had sent wheat in five trucks to Gujarat to Sabar Rolar Floor Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3524
ORDERAshok Parihar, J.1. The vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the Mobile Magistrate on the ground of carrying passengers for commercial gain without valid permit from the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner filed an application under Sections 451 and 457, Cr.P.C. before the Mobile Magistrate seeking interim custody of the vehicle against 'Supardginama'. The application was rejected by the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 8-8-97 along with five more similar applications. The Magistrate while relying on a judgment of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 675/97 (State v. Mohd. Nisar) decided on 17-7-97 held that he has no powers to release the vehicle on 'Supardginama' in a case where the alleged offence is under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 457, Cr.P.C. have again come up for consideration before this Court in case of Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan 1998 Cr LR (Raj) 307. While taking note of vari...
Tag this Judgment!Krishandutt Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3520
ORDERAshok Parihar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 2-8-1996 passed by Special Judge, A.C.D, Cases, Jodhpur.2. A trap was laid by Dy. S.P. A.C.O.P., Nagaur while the petitioner was posted as B.D.O. in Panchayat Samiti, Ladnu, Distric, Nagpur Investigation was subsequently handed over to the Addl. S.P., A.C.D., Aimer under the direction of D.G.P., Jaipur. After investigation, a final report was submitted before the trial Court. The final report had duly been endorsed by D.G.P A.C.D., Jaipur. The trial Court without discussing the material on record returned back the final report to Investigating Officer to get sanction for prosecution against the petitioner vide order dated 2-8-1996. Hence this petition.3. The only question to be determined in the present petition is whether the trial Court could have asked the Investigating Agency to get the sanction for prosecution.4. After considering the submissions made at the Bar. I have carefully gon...
Tag this Judgment!Devkarun and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3883
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of two appeals, one filed by the accused appellants Bhagirath, Devkaran, Sangram and Ramkaran and the other appeal filed by the State Government against the accused persons Bhagirath, Devkaran, Kana, Sangram and Ram Karan which arise out of the judgment dated 6-9-1979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 22/ 78. During the pendency of the appeals accused Bhagirath has expired on 27-2-1997 and, therefore, his appeal is held as abated. Therefore, the appeal of the three accused persons, namely, Devkaran, Sangram and Ram Karan and the State appeal against the four accused persons, i.e. Devkaran, Kana, Sangram and Ram Karan were heard and are being decided on merits.2. Five accused persons were tried by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 22/78 for various offences. Accused Bhagirath and Devkaran were tried for offences under Sections 147, 447, 323 and 302. Accused Sangram a...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj NaraIn Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3519
ORDERAshok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner while working as Dy. Director, Industries Department, Pali is alleged to have committed forgery and interpolation in the Government record with a view to give benefit to a private firm in the year 1979. A challan was filed against two persons including the petitioner on 4-1 -1993 in the Court of Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jodhpur for offences under Sections 420, 471, 474 read with Section 120B I.P.C. Petitioner had already retired in the year 1983.2. Before arguments on framing on charges could be heard, the co-accused Inder Mai also died around Sept. 1994.3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 197, Cr.P.C. and Section 19, P.C. Act on 5-10-1996 before the trial Court. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 24-7-1997. The trial Court has held that sanction for prosecution was not required in the present case because the challan was filed after retirement of the petitioner. Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Diwakar Srimali and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corp. of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC692; 1998(1)WLN697
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Petitioners no. 2 & 3, Assistants and petitioner no. 1, Micro Processor Operator in the Divisional Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bikaner have called in question the Notification Anx. 1, issued by respondent no. 2 on 2.8.1997 to effect the promotions to the posts of Higher Grade Assistants. The notification has been challenged on various grounds.2. It has been averred that for promotion to the post of Higher Grade Assistants an Assistant must have minimum service of 5 years to his credit but the Chairman in exercise of the powers under Rule 8 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987 (for short the Rules of 1987) has given relaxation of two years and thereby permitting the members of S.C. & S.T. to compete for the post of H.G.A. with 3 years service experience only. It has been further averred that the pass marks in the departmental examination is 50% in each paper for the general category candidat...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC565; 1998(1)WLN684
G.L. Gupta, J.1. In this writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule the petitioners sought directions against proposed termination of their services on 31.3.1998, and to continue them in service till regularly selected candidates are made available through Rajasthan Public Service Commission to replace them.2. The facts are borrowed from writ petition no. 884/98. The respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement on 6.10.1997 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in different subjects for a period of four months or till the availability of selected candidates from the R.P.S.C., which ever is earlier. The petitioner being eligible applied for the post of Lecturer. He was found suitable for the appointment to the post and was appointed in a College at Chimanpura Shahpura vide order dt. 15.11.1997 upto 31.3.1998. The petitioner joined his duties on 18.11.1997. Thereafter the R.P.S.C. also advertised posts to be filled in by selection vide advertiseme...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Bhandari Vs. United India Insurance Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC232; 1998(1)WLN691
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was the employee of the respondent United Insurance Company. On the completion of qualifying service he gave notice of 90 days seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 19.11.1997. His request of voluntary retirement was accepted and he retired on 19.11.1997.2. The petitioner's case is that he had submitted his papers for terminal benefits immediately after he gave notice seeking voluntary retirement, but he has not been given benefits as yet. It has been averred that the respondents are not correctly counting his length of service for calculating the pension and he has been deprived of his right of commutation of pension as well. It has been further averred that on the petitioner's making repeated requests to the respondents to give retiral benefits to him a cheque for Rs. 1,12,304/- as against gratuity amount was given to the petitioner but at the same time he was asked to make endorsement on the cheque in favour of the respondent-company as som...
Tag this Judgment!Madhav Gopal Garg Vs. Bhilwara Ajmer Kshetriya GramIn Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ679Raj; 1999(2)WLC694
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated August 14, 1987 Annexure-35 and order dated March 18, 1988, Annexure-37 to the writ petition discharging him from his services as a probationer within the terms and conditions of his appointment order dated February 2, 1985 Annexure-1 to the writ petition, by virtue of which, he was appointed in the Bank services as Officer for a period of two years subject to further extension by the Bank at its discretion upto maximum of one year. It was also stipulated in the appointment order dated February 2, 1985 Annexure-1 that during the probation period, the services of the petitioner can be terminated by three months' notice or on payment of three months' pay and allowances in lieu thereof.2. Admittedly, the probation period of the petitioner which was initially for two years was extended to further one year. It is not disputed before me that a regular...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Singhania Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1206Raj; 1998(3)WLC598
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This Heabcas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner Ramesh Singhania through his friend N. C. Jain, who was arrested by the respondent No. 3 Shri R.D. Sharma -The Recovery Officer-cum- Assistant Commissioner. Regional Provident Fund at Bikaner on May 7, 1996 who according to the petitioner did not disclose any reason to him prior to his detention and arrested him without any warrant of arrest. It has been alleged by him that on May 7, 1996, the respondent No. 3 alongwith Shri R.S. Pareek-Enforcement Officer and two unknown persons, who claimed themselves as officers of the Rajasthan Provident Fund Organisation, forcibly overpowered the petitioner Ramesh Singhania and pushed him into a hired jeep bearing a taxi number and was transported to the District Jail, Bikaner. The Jail authorities, however, refused to lodge the petitioner in jail whereupon he was taken to the Circuit House and confined there in a room. The friends and relatives of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »