Rajasthan Court October 1999 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhagan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1999
Reported in: II(2000)DMC700; 2000(2)WLC191; 2000(2)WLN70
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Soni submitted that the learned trial Judge committed an error in acquitting the accused-husband for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A, I.P.C. He submitted that dying declaration of Sayari wife of accused Chhagan LaL was sufficient to convict the accused.2. It is true that in her dying declaration, she had stated that since their marriage, her husband was continuously beating her and torturing her and telling that she had paramour, therefore, in the morning at about 6.30 a.m. she poured kerosene on her and burnt herself. However, this statement does not bear signature of the deceased. The reason given was that she was fully burnt and could not even put up her thumb impression. From that so-called dying declaration, it also appears that 15 years have passed after their marriage and out of their wedlock they got two sons and one daughter. If her husband was really torturing her right from the day one of their marriage then it...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN69
S.K. Sharma, J.1. It is contended that initially Final Report was given in the matter but on a protest petition of the informant cognizance under Sections 147, 447, 420, 406, 120B IPC along with Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken. I scanned the material on record. In view of the allegations made in the FIR and the fact that final report was given by the police, I am of the view that petitioners are entitled to be released under Section 438 Cr. P.C.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing on the merits and demerits of the case, I am inclined to release the accused-applicant(s) on anticipatory bail.The Investigating Officer /Arresting Officer/SHO, Police Station Khandela in F.I.R. 141/1999 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner(s) (1) Narayan S/o Shri Hanuman (2) Jhabar & (3) Hari S/o Shri Pokhar, they be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupee...
Tag this Judgment!Lichman Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN374
Bhagwati prasad, J.1. Counsel for the petitioner does not press the revision so far as it relates to the conviction. He pleads that if the Hon'ble Court deems it proper, then the accused appellant may be ordered to pay compensation to the injured complainant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the accused has already served out most part of his sentence and in this view of the matter, it would not be appropriate if the accused serves complete jail sentence.2. The learned P.P. though does not agree on this proposition that the sentence of jail should be converted into sentence of fine, but he considers that it would not be appropriate to serve the complete sentence after 8 years.3. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in case, accused petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the injured complainant, the substantive sentence awarded to the accused petitioner will be deemed to have been converted into the sentence ...
Tag this Judgment!Lila Textile Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR826(Raj)
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking' direction to return the documents impounded by the respondents on February 10, 1989. There is dispute on the factum whether the documents were impounded from the premises of the petitioner or they were impounded when the same were produced before the assessing authority in response to the notice under Section 131(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. Whatever may be the mode of impounding', the purpose of impounding the documents is to ascertain whether the assessee has concealed the income. Even if the version of the Revenue is accepted, there is a flagrant violation of clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 131 of the Act, as the assessing authority has not recorded any reason for impounding the document nor has he sought the approval from the higher authority. Shri Sandecp Bhandawat has drawn the attention of the court to the contents of annexure R/4 which provides for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lila Textile Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: [2001]245ITR826(Raj)
B. S. Chauhan, J.The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to return the documents impounded by the respondents on 10-2-1989. There is dispute on the factum whether the documents were impounded from the premises of the petitioner or they were impounded when the same were produced before the assessing authority in response to the notice under section 131(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Whatever may be the mode of impounding, the purpose of impounding the documents is to ascertain whether the assessee has concealed the income. Even if the version of the revenue is accepted, there is a flagrant violation of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of section 131 of the Act, as the assessing authority has not recorded any reason for impounding the document nor has he sought the approval from the higher authority. Shri Sandeep Bhandawat has drawn the attention of the court to the contents of annexure R/4 which provides for the so-c...
Tag this Judgment!ChaIn Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN523
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. In this case the accused were tried by the trial court for offence under Section 306 IPC. Both the accused persons Chain Ram and Smt. Jamna Bai were convicted under Section 306 and were sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. During the course of appeal accused Chain Ram died. Due to the death of Chain Ram, his appeal abates.2. This appeal is decided only in relation to respondent No. 2 Jamna Bai. The trial Court has found that there used to be a quarrel between the deceased and Chain Ram and Smt. Jamna Bai and accused Chain Ram had told about the second marriage of his son. It has been inferred by the trial Court that, since the father in law of the deceased had told the deceased that he will perform second marriage of his son, the deceased was persuaded to commit suicide. The appeal against the father in law has already been abated as he has died.3. The only allegation against the mother-in-law is that she used to quarrel with the deceased. Mere qu...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj194; 2000(4)WLC140
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. Only one contention was raised in this petition by learned counsel Mr. R. K. Soni for the petitioner namely, that the respondents have wrongly calculated the vacancies and not properly applied reservation. 2. Before dealing with this submission, few material facts are required to be stated which are as under :-- 1. Minor Mohan Lal Purohit has filed this petition through his father and prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for admission in Teacher's Training Course (T.T.C.) in accordance with the merit and admit him in the said course. 2. The petitioner belongs to general category. 3. The petitioner was first in waiting list. 4. Three candidates, (1) Champa Lal at No. 3 in the merit list and (2) Bhabhoota Ram at No. 11 in the merit list and (3) Anil Kumar did not join the course. 5. Applications were invited for 40 seats and admissions were given to 37 candidates. 3 seats remained vacant because of theabove 3 c...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1634
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This jail appeal was preferred by the appellant from jail and amicus curiae was appointed by this Court.2. Appellant-Tulsi Ram was convicted for offences under Sections 376 and 342, IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittaurgarh on 13-4-1998. He was sentenced to seven years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. He was sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for offence under Section 342, IPC. It was ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence he preferred this appeal.3. Briefly stated, on 30-10-1996 Sayri reported to Station House Officer, Bhensroadgarh that on 29-10-1996 she had gone to the field of her brother in order to dig peanuts. She worked there up to 5-6 O'clock. She was returning to Ladpura and when she reached near the field of Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN413
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. in all these writ petitions, a common question of law involved is the interpretation of Ordinance 67A of the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of factual matrix. Dr. Kailash Chandra Mittal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/99) is being taken into consideration.2. The petitioner entered into the services of the respondent College. At the time of entering into the service, an agreement was entered in between the petitioner and the respondent College. In the agreement, the age of superannuation was mentioned as 60 years. The petitioner kept on serving the respondent College. In the meantime, the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') came into operation and was given effect from 1.1.1993. Under the Act of 1989, Rules were framed which were named as The Rajasthan Non-Government Education...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Monika JaIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN524
Shiva Raj V. Patil, C.J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have claimed that at Jasma, the school was promoted by the respondent department for girls vide Annex. 2 dated 1.7.1999. Pursuant to this upgradation the present petitioners took admission in Class IX. Without there being any reason, the order Annex. 5 was passed by the respondent State whereby the upgradation of the school at Jasma was withdrawn. Instead a school at Nilodh was sought to be promoted. The case of the petitioners is that the act of the respondents is arbitrary. Having upgraded a school they could not have degraded it to the detriment of the petitioners because the right to education is a right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in : [1993]1SCR594 .2. The second ground of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to attack the order Annex. 5 is that this has violated the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »