Rajasthan Court July 1998 Judgments
Mahesh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN230
B.J. Shethna, J.1. These appeals are disposed of by this common order as it is arising out of the common judgment dated 27th May, 1998 delivered by the learned Single Judge dismissing main writ petition No. 884/98 and allied matters mentioned in the scheduled annexed to the judgment.2. Learned Counsel Shri Mridual and Shri M.S. Singhvi, appearing for the appellants-original petitioners in all these appeals vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in dismissing all writ petitions. Respondent, Director, College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued an advertisement on 6.10.1997 for temporarily filling up the posts of Teachers. The petitioners applied for the same and after due selection, they were given fixed term appointment upto 31st March, 1998. Thereafter, on 17.12.1997, Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertised the posts of Teacher for regular appointment. Several persons have applied including the petitioners for the regular s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kali BaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4764; 1999(3)WLC321
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 22nd November, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Abu Road in Criminal Case No. 354/97. By the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle (Jeep) No.GJ 9/5159.2. On 27th November, 1997 when the petition came for hearing, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court deemed it fit to issue notice to the non petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and finally disposed of. Record of the lower Court was also called. On 14-12-97, the arguments were heard in part. On 8-12-97, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it was ordered that a notice be issued to the concerned Transport Authority to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and finally di...
Tag this Judgment!Rallis India Company and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4767
ORDERS.L. Mital, J.1. The petitioners have challenged their prosecution under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred in short 'the Act') by Dy. Director Agriculture (Extension) Pesticides Inspector and Registration Authority, Sirohi through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.2. Petitioner No. 2 is Chairman and petitioner No. 3 is Vice Chairman of M/s Rallis India Company, Bombay-petitioner No. 1. Petitioners No. 4 to 7 F.A. Mehta, Y. N. Mafat Lal, B. N. Nadkarni and S. Parthsharthi are Directors of the said Company. Petitioner No. 8 R. S. Kankarwal is Area Manager, Bani Park, Jaipur. The complaint was filed against the petitioners and other four dealers at Sirohi and petitioner No. 1 M/s Rallis India Ltd., Bombay.3. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a legal point, it is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector and Authorised Chief Settlement, Commissioner, Sriganganagar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj84; 1999(1)WLC486
1. The present Special Appeal has been filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, supported with an affidavit. It is reported to be barred by lapse of time by 535 days.2. Appellants are not disputing due service of notices upon them in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. One of the cause shown by them for condonation of inordinate delay of 535 days in filing the instant lime-barred appeal is that the writ petition was decided by learned single Judge on 14-8-96 in which neither reply was filed nor the case was attended by the State counsel or Panel lawyer in the absence of file of the case. The aforesaid cause shown by the appellant in filing the present Special Appeal after inordinate delay of 535 days cannot said to be sufficient within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. We are of the opinion that once notices were duly served upon the respondents the appellants ought to have filed reply and Stale counsel or Panel lawyer ought ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gani and ors. Vs. Noor Hasan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4370
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27th July, 1996 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makarana in Criminal Case No. 234/91, Noor Hasan v. Abdul Gani. By the aforesaid order dated 27th July; 1996, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Makarana, after hearing the counsel for both the parties found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147 & 323 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and fixed 12th September, 1996 for appearance of accused persons.3. The grounds on which the order dated 27th July, 1996 has been challenged are (1) That the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code (2) That there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners in respect of offences under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Singh Vs. Sohan Lal (by Lrs.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj319
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J. 1. This revision petition by the petitioner tenant has been preferred against the order of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Pali against his order dated 6-4-98 by which he refused to make amendments in the written statement of tenant and dismissed the application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the impugned order. 3. Briefly stated, Sohanlal had filed a civil suit for eviction of premises on the ground that his son Dr. Arun Kumar who is a medical practitioner wanted to open his clinic in the demised premises which is on rent with the petitioner. Sohanlal died during the pendency of the civil suit on 20-1-96. His wife also expired during the pendency of the suit. Initially during his statement, Sohanlal deposed that he was having four rooms, store and a kitchen etc. out of which one room was being used as his bed room, the other by his son Dr. Arun Kumar, third one was being used as ...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ159
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the original record of the case.2. By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioners have prayed that the proceedings of criminal original case No. 80/87 Under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, pending in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali be quashed as the order dated 22nd November, 1985,, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate entertained the second complaint on the same facts and issued process against the accused persons including the petitioners, is illegal and without jurisdiction.3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the first complaint filed by the Insecticide Inspector on 23rd May, 1985 was dismissed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali vide order dated 1st October, 1985 and that order of dismissal being a judicial order, could not be revised by the learned Munsif a...
Tag this Judgment!Dueful Laboratory and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4534; 1999(1)WLC498
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petilioner No. 2.2. The petitioners filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution with the prayer that the proceedings of criminal Case No. 429/92 State of Rajasihan v. Mahaveer Medical Store pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh be quashed. The petitioner submitted that if it is held that petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petition should be treated as one under Section 482, Cr.P.C.3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the petition was treated as an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the. order passed by this Court on 27-1-94.4. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, may be summarised as below :-5. On 17th December. 1987, the Drug inspector, Chittorgarh took sample of Zcntamicin from M/s. Mahaveer Medical Store, Mandi Choraha, Nimbahera. At the ti...
Tag this Judgment!Banwari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2331; 1999(1)WLC192
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The appellant was the accused in Sessions Special Case No. 229/93, on the file of learned Special Judge NDPS Cases and Sessions Judge, Kota. He was found guilty under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the Act) convicted thereunder and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100000/ - in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the action for filing the instant appeal has been resorted to.3. I have considered the rival submissions and scanned the record.4. On the fateful day of March 15, 1993 at about 10.30 a.m. the accused appellant (for short the accused) was arrested under Section 8/21 of the Act. The allegation was that he was in illegal possession of 1 1/2 gms. of smack. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused and the accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as six witness...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›