Rajasthan Court February 1999 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.
The State of Raj. Vs. Gamer Dan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC647; 1999(1)WLN272
B.J. Shethna, J.1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the impugned order in question challenged in these writ petitions is the same.2. The Authorised Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer), Banner, passed separate orders on 21.4.1975, 19.9.1975, 12.8.1975 and 29.5.1976 in four different ceiling cases No. 337 of 1970 State v. Ambadan, 1 of 1975 State v. Bachhibai 1322 of 1974 State v. Durgadan and 1323 of 1974 State v. Gamer Dan. Ambadan, Bachhibai, Durgadan and Gamer Dan were the members of one family. During the pendency of these ceiling proceedings, Ambadan died leaving behind his aforesaid legal heirs.3. The Tehsildar, Sheo, District Banner submitted an application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') to the Additional Collector requesting that the aforesaid orders passed by the Authorised Officer in the aforesaid ceiling cases be set aside because the same are bad in law, illegal and against the provisions of the law.4. In turn...
Ran Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2089; 1999WLC(Raj)UC501
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. Accused appellant faced trial under Sections 302 and 201, IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar and was convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and three years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000A under Section 201, IPC by the judgment dated 3-1-1996. The same is assailed by way of this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is that Smt. Santokhi Devi is the wife of Ran Singh and the real sister of deceased Sultan. Sultan had five brothers out of whom Jagdish has agricultural land in village Jhiloda. This was being cultivated by Sultan. Some time in the end of February, 1994 Sultan and his son Rambhagat went to village Jhiloda in order to cut the crop from the field. They were staying with Santokhi. It is alleged that during the night in between 1st and 2nd March, 1994 Sultan after taking dinner went to sleep in a kotha with accused appellant. DW-1 Kalu is the maternal nephew of Santokhi was also s...
Gurdeep Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1785; 1999WLC(Raj)UC541
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 25/95 convicting the accused-appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' imprisonment, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also on the grounds urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.2. Facts giving rise to the appeal stated briefly are that first information report was lodged on 26th May, 1992 that the accused persons in the night of 25th May, 1992 at about 8.30 p.m., attacked one Chakar Singh with the intention to kill him in his house and thereafter outside his house in village Chak-3 S. H. P. D. in Suratgarh District. Investigation was conducted on the basis of this information and the accused person...
Badan Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2268
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present Jail Appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Badan Nath through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur against the judgment impugned dated 9-7-96 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raj Samand whereby he convicted accused appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and Rs. 2,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case as disclosed in Ex. 5 registered at Police Station Nathdwara District Raj Samand is that the accused himself lodged a written report Ex. P13 at Police Station Nathdwara to the effect that during the night of 29/30th May 1994, in between 11-12 O' clock his nephew Arjun Singh entered into his house by jumping his boundary wall embedded with glasses and came into his Courtyard where he was sleeping. Hearing some noise he awakened and put on the light. In the light he saw deceased Arjun Singh, in stat...
Sampat Lal Daga Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj221; 1999(3)WLC709; 1999(1)WLN267
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. On the basis of Supreme Courtjudgment in case of Har Karan Das Mangi Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1734, learned counsel Shri Thanvi for the petitioner, submitted that the State Government as well as the Central Government both committed an error in passing the orders at Annexure 5 dated 17-5-1990 and Annexure 11 dated 4-6-1993 respectively only on the ground of delay. He also places on record photostat copies of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in case of Roshan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2549/85 decided on 16-12-I986andcaseof Zakir Hussain v. Union of India (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1627/83 decided on July 21, 1994 and submitted that two learned single Judges of this Court relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions. He, therefore, submits that this Court may allow the writ petition filed by the present petitioners and quash the impugned orders at Annexure 5 an...
Jugal Kishore Vs. Roshan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2296; 1999(3)WLC317; 1999(1)WLN105
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. The revision petition is directed against the order d t. 22-10-97 passed in an appeal against conviction, whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 391, Cr. P.C. on 25-1-99 the petitioner filed an application for treating the revision petition as misc. petition which was allowed.2. The relevant facts of the case are these. Jugal Kishore had issued a cheque for Rupees 71,000/- on 7-4-91 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Udaipur in favour of the complainant-non-petitioner Roshan Lal for repaying the debt. Roshan Lal presented the cheque to the Bank but it was dishonoured. The cheque was again presented but again it was dishonoured. Jugal Kishore after giving notice to the' petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act. After the trial was held, petitioner Jugal Kishore was convicted by the Magistrate vide judgment dt. 4-8-94. He preferred an appeal against the said judgment to th...
Nena Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2801
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 29-1-98 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balotra whereby he convicted the appellants under Section, 325/34, 324/34 and 323. Instead of sentencing them he ordered the release of the appellants on probation and further ordered them to (pay) compensation of Rs. 4,000/- to Bagda Ram, injured.2. The admitted facts of the case are that an occurrence had taken place on 28-2-97 at 5 p.m. in village Gudanal for which both the parties lodged first information reports, and both the parties were challaned. Mr. Choudhary informed that both the cases were decided by the trial Court on 29-1 -98 and in both the cases, the parties were released on probation but in the instant ease compensation was also directed to be paid by the appellant.3. In the FIR Ex. P-1 lodged by Gila Ram P.W. 1 it was stated that when he was in his field and his brother Bagda Ram was going to his house accused Nena Ram, Bhabuta Ram, Deepara...
Navyug Oil and Dal Mills Vs. Nathi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1576; 1999WLC(Raj)UC312; 1999(1)WLN258
D.C. Dalela, J. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') seeking compensation from the appellant, the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No. 8, driver of the vehicle and the respondent No. 9, insurer of the vehicle for the death of Hari Ram in the accident dated 13.7.1988 involving the vehicle in question. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,22,200, the liability of the insurer, respondent No. 9, was made limited to Rs. 1,50,000 and for the remaining amount, the owner appellant was made liable along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the claim petition, feeling aggrieved by the award dated 30.3.1991 the owner appellant has preferred this appeal.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.3. At the request of the claimants, the proceedings against the driver were dropped. The learned counsel for the appellant had argued that since t...
Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC30; 1999(1)WLN102
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 11th June, 1998 passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma, RJS Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Landnu, in complaint case No. 5/98 Narain Ram v. Bhanwar Singh By the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the impugned order, learned Judicial Magistrate has not discussed the evidence nor given any cogent reason for coming to the conclusion that there were grounds for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.4. It appears that Narain Ram lodged a First Information Report No. 212 on 22nd August, 1996 at Police Station Landnu. In the First Infor...
Dinesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC518; 1999(1)WLN264
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 896/98 has been filed by petitioners Dinesh and Sachin seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 363/98 of Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur. Misc. Petition No. 960/98 has been filed by the petitioner seeking the modification in the order dt. 28.10.1998 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur wherein while granting anticipatory bail it was ordered that the petitioners shall produce the seized Loader within seven days at the Police Station and that seizure would be treated a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.2. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioners. contended that the F.I.R. does not disclose a commission of the cognizable offence, and therefore, it should be quashed. His contention was that even as per the contents of the F.I.R. there was Hire Purchase agreement between the parties and as the complainant had committed default in the payment of instalments, the petitioners were entitled to seize the Loader financed by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »