Rajasthan Court August 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prem Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ819; 1999(2)WLC89
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 5th March, 1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bar in Criminal Original Case No. 135/96 be quashed and set aside it (as) it amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in criminal case No. 130/96, State v. Sugan Chand and Ors., the petitioner Deep Chand and Prem Chand were examined as prosecution witnesses. Both of them were cross-examined at great length and as such it cannot be said that the accused persons were denied the opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioners but on 13-9-95, an application was submitted on behalf of the accused persons (who are non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 7) to recall the petitioner under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for fu...
Raju Alias Rajendra Vs. Mst. Pushpa Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2294
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 1st July, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Revision No. 19/95 Raju alias Rajkumar v. Mst. Pushpa Devi and Anr., whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order dated 9th January, 95 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 88/91 Smt. Pushpa Devi v. Raju alias Rajkumar.2. By the aforesaid order dated 4th January, 95, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application filed by Smt. Pushpa Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance to her and her minor son and awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to Smt. Pushpa Devi and maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to Nathu.3. According to the averments ...
Principal, Doongar College Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ978Raj; 1999(2)WLC592
Yadav, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.R. Singhvi at length. 2. Perused the award under challenge dated February 20, 1998 (Annex.5 to the writ petition) passed by Judge, Labour Court Bikaner. 3. At the first instance it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the present case. The Judge Labour Court, Bikaner has committed manifest error of law in holding that the college is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) and respondent No. 1 is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947). It is submitted by Mr. Singhvi that the college cannot be construed as an industry by any stretch of imagination inasmuchas a college is not a place of any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and it does not include any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workman. It is contended...
Man Mal Sharma and Etc. Vs. Bikaner Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj13; 1999(2)WLC195
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. All the aforesaid petitions are inter-connected and there is an order of the Court to hear all these petitions together. Thus, they are being disposed of by the common judgment. To dispose of all these three petitions, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1031/1998 is taken as the leading case for the reason that all the relevant documents and orders of all the three cases have been filed therein.2. The respondent No. 1, Bikaner Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar, hereinafter called 'the Bhandar', is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'). The management committee of the respondent No. 1, which is headed by the elected Chairman, resolved to instal a statue of its earlier Chairman late (Shri) Vijay Singh in the premises of the respondent No. 1 -- the Bhandar, vide Resolution dated 7-12-94, ju...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3985; 1998WLC(Raj)UC526
1. Ashok Kumar has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6-6-1996 passed by learned appeal Judge, Hunumangarh where by he convicted accused appellant under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to under go 10 years R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. one lakh, in default to under go six months S.I.2. The prosecution case is that on 16-3-1993 at 5.15 p.m. Richhpal Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Sangaria receiving an information from 'Mukhbir' that a man, wearing cream colour trouser and white sweater was carrying two bags, full of poppy powder, recorded the same and after informing his superiors by wireless message, proceeded towards Tibi Bus Stand along with police party. He accosted the man (Ashok Kumar accused) moving on the 'Kacha' road. After introducing himself Richhpal Singh told that he wanted to search him and if he wanted to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer he would take there. On telling by accused Ashok Kumar, that he could hims...
Hanuman Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1406; 1998(1)WLC241
A.S. Godara, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of impugned judgment and order dated 28-7-78 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 1/1977. The appellants Hanuman Singh, Mangi Lal, Suwa Lal and Bheru Singh, in Appeal No. 292/78 while being acquitted of offences under Sections 302/34 and 120B, I.P.C., instead, were convicted under Section 304 Pt. I read with Section 34, I.P.C. and were awarded eight years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 4000/- and, in default of payment of fine, six months' R. I. Being aggrieved there against, the appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction and order of sentence. However, co-accused of the present accused-appellants, Dayal Ram, who was also challaned arid charged with commission of offences under Sections 302/109 and 120B, I.P.C., was acquitted and hence the State by leave has preferred Appeal No. 490/78 against Dayal Ram whereas the accused-appellants of Appeal No. 292/78 have also been appealed against on account of...
Kallu and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4247
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. Petitioners Kallu and Mangi Lal have preferred this petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings of Case No. 11/89 Under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) pending in the Court of Judge, Special Court, Essential Commodities Act cases, Banswara.2. The petitioners' case is that the aforesaid criminal case was instituted against them on 2-8-89 on the complaint of Shri Shivnath Singh. Enforcement Officer, District Supply Office, Banswara Under Section 3/7 of the Act. The complainant alleged that he inspected the shop of the petitioners at Bhagi Dhora on 19-4-89 as he had an information that truck was to arrive loaded with wheat and gram bags. The complainant stopped the truck in the presence of Kheni Raj, who stated that the bags were purchased from Karji. He produced the bill which had over-writings in the contents. It was found that the petitioners had illegally sold the wheat and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›