Rajasthan Court September 1998 Judgments
Lichhmanram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ102; 1999(2)WLC177
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 7-3-1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh in Cr. Original Case No. 75/95 (State v. Lichhmanram) under Sections 341, 342 & 323, IPC whereby the petitioners' application dated 11-4-97 for dropping the aforesaid proceedings was dismissed.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that S.H.O. Sujangarh after necessary investigation in FIR No. 196/94 under Sections 447, 341 & 323. IPC lodged by complainant Kanhaiya Lal submitted chargesheet against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh to stand trial for the offences mentioned above. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the above mentioned offences on 14-2-1995. The accusation of the offence was not read over to the petitioners till 11-4-1097 and petitioners filed an application to drop the proceedings against them in pursuance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1541
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd June, 1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhilwara in session case No. 28/78 (66 of 1978) State v. Roopa. By the aforesaid judgment, appellants Mangu, Banshi, Nanu, Roopa, Dhoola, Bheru, Mohan, Nanu s/o Moda, Nanu s/o Rama and Gheesa alias Gheesalal were convicted Under Sections 147, 323, 325/149, 436/149, IPC. Appellant Mangu, Banshi, Nanu, Roopa, Dhoola were also convicted Under Section 452, IPC and accused Bheru, Mohan, Nanu Ahir, Nanu Raigar and Gheesa were also convicted Under Section 452/149, IPC. The sentences imposed on the appellants for various offences were as given below :-(1) For the offence Under Section 147, IPC :-Rigorous imprisonment for year and a fine of Rs. 100/- and further rigorous imprisonment for one month for default in payment of fine.(2) For the offence Under Section 323 :-Rigorous imprison...
Tag this Judgment!Richhpal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ777; 1999(2)WLC373
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the order Dt/-. 20-5-98 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, Churu, by which he took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences Under Sections 147, 323 IPC in Complaint Case No. 500/96 (F.R. No 82/1994). The facts which are relevant for deciding this petition briefly stated are that respondent No. 2 (Moti Singh s/o Sh. Raghunath Singh r/o Sujangarh District Churu filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, on 3-1-94 with the allegation that on 23-12-93 at about 8 PM, his elder brother Vishal Singh and Madan Singh were standing near the shop of Inder Singh accused petitioner No. 4 in the case, where all the accused petitioners were present. The accused petitioners, who had assembled at the shop of accused Inder Singh asked Madan Singh to come out and after he came out of the shop, Inder Singh asked Madan Singh about the borrowed money of the shop. One Richpal Singh al...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dhan Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN226
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. All these special appeals emanate from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.10.1995 where by 5 writ petitions were dismissed. Since identical questions of fact and law arise, we propose to dispose of these special appeals by this composite judgment.2. The appellants are residents of village Baget, Gram Panchayat Khudiyala, Panchayat Samiti Dudu, District Jaipur. These 4 appellants and one other person moved applications for grant of Patta of the disputed land in terms of Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter, referred as the Rules') before the Gram Panchayat Khudiyala. While processing the above applications, the Gram Panchayat Khudiyala appointed a committee consisting of some Panchas to inspect the site and submit a report for allotment of the said land. Accordingly, the committee inspected the site and submitted its report on 27.1.1982. The committee stated in the report that auction sale of the proposed land was not poss...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ193; 1999(1)WLC462
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The petitioners have come up by way of revision petition against the orders dated 19-7-1997 and 18-11-1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 2-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 395/97 by which the trial Court while exonerating the accused of the charge for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. held that the accused are liable to be charged and tried for the offence under Sections 323 and 324, I.P.C.2. The questions which arise for consideration of this Court are as to :--(i) Whether the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate is liable to be interfered with at this initial stage whereon the basis of evidence on record only charge has been framed while culpability of the accused is yet to be established' for the said offences?(ii) Whether the scope of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. extends so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court directing framing of...
Tag this Judgment!Daler Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1471; 1999(1)WLC274
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, following questions of law do arise for consideration of this Court:-(1) As to whether once the accused having been extended the benefit of probation, regard being had to the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act of 1958') and thereafter release on furnishing personal bond, to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years w.e.f. the date of the said order i.e. 15-6-1996, for offence under Sections 456 and 354, I.P.C. whether it was open to the First Appellate Court to have reversed the findings of the trial Court on the question of sentence by convicting the petitioner for the said offence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- by setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court?(2) Whether it was open for the First Appellate Court to have reversed the finding of the trial Court on the question of exten...
Tag this Judgment!Sidhkaran Vs. Smt. Manjulata
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj40; 1998(3)WLC764
ORDERV.S. Kokje, A.C.J.1. An interesting question arises in this case and that is whether a party who has failed in bringing a particular document on record through an application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC cannot bring the same evidence on record by calling a witness under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC to produce the original document. A certified copy of daily diary said to be filled in by the plaintiff in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer was sought to be produced along with an application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC by the plaintiff. This application was rejected. Thereupon the plaintiff called for the original diary through a witness from the Divisional Forest Officer's Office. This was not done surreptitiously but by moving an application during the pendency of the plaintiffs own statement. The Court allowed the application, deferred the statement of the plaintiff and allowed the witnesses to be summoned for production of document. The witnesses produced the original diary and it se...
Tag this Judgment!Jahangir Joiya Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ154
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. By this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner Jahangir Joiya has invoked the inherent powers of this Court to quash F.I.R. No. 58 dated 27-3-98 P. S. Basni, Jodhpur.2. The Director, Alcobex Metals Ltd., Head Office, Jodhpur, Shri Sampat Raj s/o Bes Raj Kanugo r/o A 27, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur lodged a complaint under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C, against the petitioner in the Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur on 24-3-98, which was forwarded for investigation Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the Police Station, Basni, Jodhpur. The S.H.O. Basni, registered a case under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. under F.I.R. No. 58 dated 27-3-98, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner.3. According to this F.I.R., the petitioner Jahangir Joiya is the Area Manager of the Branch Office at Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) of the Alcobex Metals Ltd., Jodhpur. The petitioner's duties were to purchase and sell the goods for the Company and to make the payment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›