Rajasthan Court February 1999 Judgments
Jhulelal Charitable and Education Trust Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj309; 2000(1)WLC632
ORDER1. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality of the order dated 27-9-1991 Annexure 12 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur (respondent No. 3) on the ground, inter alia, that he has committed jurisdictional error reversing the order granting licence on 12-9-1991 in respect of land in dispute to the petitioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 arising out of revision before him which filed after 15 months. The locus standi in filing the revision petition by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 3 is also challenged in the present writ petition.2. Answering respondent No. 4 has filed a detailed reply denying the averments made in the writ petition and supported the order impugned dated 17-9-1991 Annexure 12 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of re...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Chavla and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2562; 1999(3)WLC711
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. This Misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 5-2-96 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar whereby he read over accusation under Section 292, IPC to the petitioners.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17-8- 93 Shri Kashi Ram, C.I., received some information and hence he raided house No. 4D-33 in Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar, which belonged to Charanjit, at 5.30 p.m. There he found hide of a leopard lying. He also noticed that four persons including one lady were viewing obscene film on the television with the help of V.C.R. He, there fore, seized the cassette, television set and the V.C.R. After going to the Police Station, the Circle Inspector registered a case under Section 292, IPC and Section 10 of the Rajasthan Video 'Film Regulation & Exhibition Act, 1990. On the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the four petitioners. The learned Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order read over acc...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjas and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3626; 2000(1)WLC328
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. Through the above mentioned 4 miscellaneous petitions the petitioners have challenged the order dt. 18-5-98 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nohar whereby he took cognizance against them under Sections 323, 342 and 394, IPC.2. The facts, Non-petitioner No. 2 Chhabeela Ram filed a private complaint on 26-3-98 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, stating that he was active worker of Shiv Sena Unit of Nohar Rawatsar and that he had exposed the conspiracy of the police and administrative officers through newspapers that they were grabbing the Government land worth crores of rupees on which they (petitioners) had given allurement to him that he stopped pursuing the matter, and they would arrange a plot of land for him free of charge and had threatened him that he would face the consequences if he did not deter. It was stated that on 23-3-98 the complainant had gone to village Thirana for buying she-buffalo and at about 7-7-30 p.m. when he was at the h...
Tag this Judgment!Bhopal Singh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2746; 1999(3)WLC452; 1999(1)WLN174
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1 This revision is directed against the order dt. 18-2-1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, in favour of respondent No. 2 Narain Nath for the interim custody of the tractor.2. The brief facts of the case are that in connection with FIR No. 822/85 P. S. Kotwali, Chittorgarh, Tractor No. RJK 6745 and trolley were seized by the police on 28-11-1985. One Pikesh Kumar made an application on 10-12-1985 for the interim custody of the tractor and trolley stating that owner of the vehicle was Narain Nath but the same was registered in his name as he was the financer of the tractor. The application of Pikesh Kumar was allowed by the Magistrate vide order dt. 6-1-86. However, Pikesh Kumar did not take the delivery of the vehicle, instead Chothmal claiming to be the power of attorney-holder of Pikesh Kumar made an application for the delivery of the tractor and trolley. The tractor and trolley were handed over to him on his furnishing personal bond in the...
Tag this Judgment!Dharampal and Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3110
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. Through this misc. petition, accused Dharampal and Pushpa Devi seek quashment of the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. The relevant facts of the case are these. Shri Khema Ram Vishnoi, Enforcement Inspector on 18-11-79 intercepted a tanker of kerosene oil in village Bikarni. There was no invoice with the tanker. Puran s/o. Champalal was the driver of the tanker and Khuman Singh who was on the tanker disclosed himself to be an employee of M/s. Narendra and Company, Udaipur. Shri Vishnoi found that kerosene oil worth 9,000 Its had been sold in the village. After an enquiry was held, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging various irregularities and illegalities committed by M/s. Narendra & Co., Udaipur which firm was authorised wholesale dealer and distributor of the kerosene oil. The complaint was fi...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC403; 1999(1)WLN436
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner in the capacity of an adopted son of a deceased Government Servant, has approached this court seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules of 1975.)2. The grievance expressed by the petitioner in the instant petition is that he was taken in adoption by Kesha Ram who died on January 18, 1973 while working as Forest Guard. At the time of death of Kesha Ram, the petitioner was four years of age. On April 20, 1993, widow of Kesha Ram executed adoption deed and got it registered. The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds in the capacity of adopted son of Kesha Ram but the request of the petitioner was turned down on the ground that he was not the near relative of late Kesha Ram.3. I have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record.4. Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 1975 defi...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3829; 1999(3)WLC455; 1999(1)WLN173
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision against the order of learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittaurgarh passed on 25-9-1997 by which he framed charge against petitioner Pradeep Kumar Jain for offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PP.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21-2-1997 Bus No. RJ-06-P-0555 was going from Chittaurgarh to Delhi. SHO of Police Station Chanderia checked it and found that 'Doda-Post' packed in four gunny bags weighing 104.800 gms. was being carried on the roof of the bus. The conductor and the driver of the bus informed that the goods belong to the passenger sitting on seat No. 19-20. Kalu was occupying those seats and admitted that the contraband belonged to him. He was taken in custody and was interrogated. On 23-2-1997 he informed that the contraband belonged to Pradeep Kumar Jain which was handed over to him to be carried to Delhi. These bags were handed over by Prad...
Tag this Judgment!Moola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2506; 1999WLC(Raj)UC480
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner by his judgment dated 17-11-1998 convicted the accused-appellant under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to 7 years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo six months' simple imprisonment. By this appeal accused-appellant has assailed his conviction.2. The case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix PW-3 Jasoda along with her father PW-1 Shivlal came to police station Kolayat on 17-4-1997 and reported that on 16-4-1997 her father Shivlal and her mother PW-2 Chuki along with her younger brothers had gone to the temple of Bheruji. Jasoda and her younger sister Santu were the only inhabitants in the house. There was a shop of grocery adjacent to house which was being carried on by her father and which was also being looked after by her in absence of her father. At about 1.00 p.m. on 16-4-1997 accused-appellant came there in absence of her younger sister Santu who had gone to the neig...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Shisodia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj256
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16-2-1999 (Annex. 3) passed by His Excellency the Governor of State of Rajasthan, whereby, 5 days starting from 20-2-1999 to 24-2-1999 have been declared as 'Dry Days' for three Districts of Rajasthan i.e. Jodhpur, Nagaur and Rajsamand in view of the by-elections which are going to held on 22-2-99. Learned counsel Shri Lodha for the petitioner submitted that when the election was for Sardarpura Constituency of Jodhpur District then 'dry days' could have been declared only for that constituency or at the most for Jodhpur City, but it cannot be for the entire Jodhpur District. This submission of Mr. Lodha cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the impugned order at Annex. 3 is passed for the three Districts namely Jodhpur, Nagaur and Rajsamand where by-elections are there on 22-2-99 and except the petitioner no one has challenged the impugned order at Annex. 3 passed for Nagaur...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2792; 2000WLC(Raj)UC388
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. Durga Ram accused appellant was convicted for Killing Sheochand on 1-4-1994 at about 11 -00 a.m. in a field by an axe. lie has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. This conviction and sentence has been challenged in this appeal.2. Briefly stated, Smt. Laduri, the wife of deceased, reported to SHO police station Taranagar on 1-4-1994 at 3-30 p.m. that a field of the family was situated about two miles away from road leading from Sahawa to Bhadra. A thatched hut was situated in the field. Her husband Sheochand had gone to the field at about 8 00 a.m. At about 12 O'clock Bajrang and Sanwannal, who are her grand-children, came from the field and informed that at about 11-00 a.m. when they were cooking food Sheochand had come to them. These boys were residing in a hut in (heir field which was situated on the northern side of Sheochand's field. According to these boys, Durga Ram accused appell...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »