Rajasthan Court February 2000 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bapu Lal Bhandari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN479
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 9.4.1984 passed by the learned Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh in Cr. Case No. 561/76 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused under the Food Adulteration Act.2. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion for reasons stated in the impugned order that the accused cannot be held guilty of offence with which they are charged. Consistent with the finding of not guilt, the learned trial Judge proceeded to acquit the accused. This acquittal is impugned in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.3. The position of law in relation to interference in the matter of acquittals ordered by court of competent jurisdiction is well settled. I have already taken this view in a detailed judgment in criminal appeal No. 288/92 delivered on 1-2.2.1998. It is well settled now, therefore, that unless the findings given by the learned tria...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ655Raj; 2000(2)WLN241
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petition was finally heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. As per averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners are office bearers of the Agro Industries Corporation Employees Union Rajasthan, Jaipur, which is affiliated with All India Trade Union Congress. Litigation of employees is subjudice in this Court. The petitioners have been contesting the cases against the respondents. The details of four pending cases in this Court, have been given in the writ petition. Both the petitioners have been authorised by the Union to look after these cases.2. The petitioners requested the Management to initiate enquiry in respect of illegalities and irregularities committed in the Corporation vide letters dated January 30, 1999, February 1, 1999 and February 5, 1999. It was also requested that the employees should be provided with the receipt of the Provident Fund as well as the copies of the State Insurance Statement. The meetings f...
Tag this Judgment!Panjumal Sindhi Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC379; 2000(2)WLN51
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner who was defendant/appellant in the suit against the order dated 12.11.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota, whereby, application seeking amendment in written statement filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC by the defendant has been dismissed.2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant seeking eviction on the ground of his personal bonafide necessity so as to establish tea restaurant & hotel. After trial, the suit was decreed by judgment & decree dated 30.8.1989 by the Munsif (North) Kota, against which the defendant preferred first appeal during the pendency of which, he also moved an application seeking amendment for adding following averment in his written statement as special objection No. 3.In last week of February, 1998, plaintiff had got constructed a big hall in the sha...
Tag this Judgment!Kachroo and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN467
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.9.1994 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 102/93 convicting the appellants of offence under Sections 302/149 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment to further undergo one month's S.I. The appellants have also been convicted of offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, indefault of payment to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The appellants have also been convicted offence under Sections 323 and 147 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.4.1993 PW/3 Gauji submitted an oral F.I.R. at Police Station Ambapura Distt. Banswara stating interalia that his sister Jamna w/o Nagji had come 15 to 20 days back after delivery with her two daughters namely Anita aged 2 years and another daughter of two months. Her br...
Tag this Judgment!Chiman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj206; 2000(2)WLC1
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This petition has been placed before us on a reference made by our learned brother Hon'ble V.G. Palshikar, J. on 14-5-1999. It is a brief order, which we would like to reproduce, which is as under :--'Dated 14-5-1999.S. B. WRIT PETITION NO. 1688/83HON'BLE SHRI V. G. PALSHIKAR. J.Mr. D.S. Shishodia for the Appellant, Mr. Vijay Vishnoi, for the Respondent.In this petition, the order of the Collector and other authorities is challenged on several grounds. The important question, however, which arise in this case is regarding jurisdiction of the Collector to invoke revisional powers under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. 1953 and the Rules made thereunder can be exercised at any time as the Section provides no limitation for such exercise. There are divergent view on the point and at least two contradictory judgments of the Single Bench including myself. I am of the view that though there is no period of limitation prescribed the reasonable period as contempla...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj302; 2000(4)WLC249
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. As per the notification for auction of 'Tendu Patta' for the year 1992, the petitioner gave offer of Rs. 9,18.999/- to the respondents. The tenders were opened on 5-2-92 and the petitioner also deposited earnest money of Rs. 93,000/- on 5-2-92 itself. The petitioner's offer was highest. On a day earlier to it i.e. on 4-2-92, the petitioner gave undertaking (Annex. R/3). Relevant para of which is as under :--^^6& eSa@ge,rn~ }kjk ?kksf'kr djrk gwW@ djrs gSsa fd eS@ge@esjh@gekjhfufonk j[kus ds ckn izLrko ij rFkk bl fufonk lwpuk ds fucU/kuks rFkk 'krksZ ijrc rd ck/; jgwWxk@jgsxs tc rd fd l{ke vf/kdkjh}kjk fufonk Lohdkj ;k vLohdkj djus ds vkns'k ugh gks tkrs ;k nwljk o;fDr ;kbdkbZ ds fy, [kjhnnkj fu;qDr ugha gks tkrk A** 2. As per Clause 586 of the Forest Manual the Tendu tree should be pollarded an coppiced during the period from 15th February to 15th March. Though the bid of the petitioner was highest and the petitioner deposited earnest money of Rs. 93,000/- his t...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1150
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 14-9-1984 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Bikaner in criminal case No. 10/1979 convicting the appellant accused under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to suffer one year's R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, this appeal is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me when the appeal came for hearing.2. The prosecution story stated briefly is that one Surat Singh was Conductor with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and was serving in Sri Ganganagar Depot. On 17-4-1979, first information report was lodged before Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Sri Ganganagar that one Laxman present appellant-accused was Accountant in the Ganganagar Depot of the Corporation. Three months prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., the complainant Surat Singh as Conductor was plying bus on the Delhi -- Gang...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep SarIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC103; 2000(2)WLN49
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing notification dated 11.11.1991 issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure 6) and the notice issued under Section 9 of the said Act on 24.4.1993 (Annexure 7).2. It is pertinent to observe that by way of filing present writ petition, notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been challenged for the reason that known to the petitioner.3. It is to be noticed that the aforesaid annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition are challenged by way of filing the instant writ petition on the ground, interalia, that the petitioner came to know about the land acquisition proceedings relating to the land in dispute when he received a notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 24.4.1993. Prior to aforesaid date he had no information about acquisition proceedings. It is averred in the writ petition that after receipt of notice under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN489
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.10.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in sessions case No. 11/91 convicting the accused appellant of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo 2 months' R.I. The appellant has also been convicted of offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment to further undergo 1 month's R.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW/2 Suryabhan Singh submitted a report written by PW/1 Banshi Lal at Police Station, Raipur stating interalia that his younger brother Badri Lal was living in house outside the village for last more than 20 years. He used to live alone. As Badri Lal was sick for last 7 to 8 days he had gone to enquire about his health. On opening the main gate, he di...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN85
S.C. Mittal, J.1. This appeal by the abovenamed four appellants is directed against the judgment dated 9.9.1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 18/79 wherein the appellants Ram Niwas, Deva Ram and Rama alias Ram Narain have been convicted under Sections 302/34, 120B I.P.C. and the appellant No. 1 Ram Niwas has been further convicted under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant No. 4 Gheesu Ram was convicted under Section 182 I.P.C. but his appeal stands abated on his death during the pendency of the appeal. The appellants were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the appellant accused Gheesu Ram himself lodged a report Ex. P.18 at Police Station Mundwa on 6.2.1977 at 3.50 P.M. wherein the stated that he and Ram Ratan were going to Nagaur at about 6.30 A.M. When they reached at a distance of one mile from the village they heard the gun fire. When they proceeded little further the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »