Rajasthan Court March 2000 Judgments
Munna Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN266
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioner had filed this writ petition in the year 1996 with the prayer that the investigation of FIR No. 46/96 and FIR No. 47/96 registered at Police Station Suket in the District of Kota as contained in Annexures-1 & 2 respectively should be handed-over to the Central Bureau of Investigation who should be directed to register a regular First Information Report against respondent tyo.2 Shri Rajeev Datta, Station House Officer of Police Station Suket District, Kota, who was posted there when the aforesaid FIRs were lodged. The petitioner admittedly is an accused in FIR No. 47/96, since he was alleged to be a member of the gang which had created commotion as a result of which the police firing took place at Suket in the District of Kota. The petitioner's further prayer was that the FIR No. 46/96 which has been lodged against one Khaju and FiR No. 47/96 in which the petitioner Munna Khan is also an accused alongwith others should be quashed and the States Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Gopal Gosala
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR635]; (2000)IILLJ1304Raj; 2000WLC(Raj)UC312
S.V. Patil, C.J. and Arun Madan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan at Jaipur directed against the order dated April 21, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4463/1994 allowing the writ petition filed by Shri Gopal Gosala (the respondent in this writ petition. In the writ petition, a detailed reply was filed by the appellant. As can be gathered from the pleadings of the parties, the Inspector of the appellant inspected the premises of the respondent on April 25, 1975 and found there were 20 employees and list of the said employees -was given in Annexure R-2. On June 23, 1975 the appellant issued Annexure R/C, a coverage letter. The respondent made a representation dated September 9, 1975 as per Annexure R-5 opposing coverage of the establishment by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'). Thereafter t...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1962
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. Through this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of the Cr. Case No. 1242/89 under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'P.F.A. Act') pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara on the ground of delay in trial.2. The facts necessary to be stated for the disposal of this petition are that a complaint was filed against the petitioners on 19-12-89. They appeared in the Court on 4-1-90 and order was passed to send the second sample by the office for Chief Medical & Health Officer, Banswara on 18-1-90. Sample was received on 8-6-90 and it was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for chemical examination and the report was received on 22-9-90. The Court commenced the prosecution evidence. Thereafter the case was fixed for framing the charge on 12-8-92 which was adjourned up to 21-12-93 for the Same purpose. The trial Court ordered the trial by warrant p...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesha Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3420; 2000(2)WLC723; 2000WLC(Raj)UC380
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. By this Misc. Petition petitioners Ganesha Ram, Om Kumar (Onkar) and Hanuman have challenged the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu dated 5-12-1998 by which he ordered to frame charge under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 302/34, IPC against them.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the record.3. Briefly stated, on 23-1-1997 at 1.30 a.m. Ladu Ram reported to police to the effect that on 22-1-1997 at about 9 p.m. when he was going to meet his mother residing with his younger brother, he heard a noise of' Maarlo-Maarlo'. He went towards the house of Mamraj and found that Ganesha Ram, Mahavir, Rajuram, Onkarmal and Hanuman were giving beatings to Mamraj. Ganesha Ram was armed with gandasi, Mahavir with a barchhi and the rest of three were armed with lathis. Ganesha Ram inflicted blows by gandasi and Mahavir by barchhi on the head of Mamraj. Mamraj fell down. Then...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chandra Sharma Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj126; 2000(4)WLC624
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioner was a panel lawyer with the respondent State of Rajasthan for conducting cases on its behalf as per express terms and conditions of agreement between him and the State which envisaged that 50% of the fee would be payable by the respondent after reply is filed in the case and the balance 50% would be paid after conclusion of the proceeding.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.D. Rastogi, has submitted that a lawyer, who is engaged by the State or any other litigant, is entitled to the full fee for the entire case and not merely the amount which is due on the date when he is removed by the litigant as his advocate. In support of his submission he has relied upon a decision reported in 1979 Raj LW 73 : (AIR 1979 Raj 137) delivered in the matter of Union of India v. Radhey Shyam in order to emphasis that in the said case also even though as per the terms of agreement, only half of the total fee was payable soon after the written statement w...
Tag this Judgment!Nav Bharat Rice and General Mills Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC593(Raj); 2001(4)WLC795; 2000(3)WLN101
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. These two revisions are filed by the same dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, arising out of common order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal Nos. 477/96/ CST/Ganganagar and 478/96/CST/Ganganagar relating to the assessment periods 1982-83 and 1985-86. The appeals were decided by the Board on January 16, 1999.2. The question relates to levy of Central sales tax on the rice sold by the dealer in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, where the dealer has paid tax on paddy, from which rice is manufactured, at the rate of 3 per cent under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. At the time of assessment the assessee has claimed that he is entitled to exemption from the payment of tax on rice sold in course of inter-State trade or commerce in the present case because he is governed by Notification No. 324 F.4(67)FD/ Gr. IV/76-25 dated September 8, 1976 issued under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (annexure-6). The ass...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC110; 2000(2)WLN716
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana dated 9.1.1999 by which he quashed in revision the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu dated 20.9.1997 taking cognizance for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.2. Brielly stated, Radhey Shyam reported to police on 5.7.1993 that he was the incharge of accounts of Brahmin Panchayat which looks after the utensils of the panchayat which are lent for the purpose of cooking food during marriages. Some marriage was performed in the family of Deepa Ram where the utensils were sent. Some marriage was to take place in the family of Bhagwan Das on 6.5.1993. Bhagwan Das came to Radhey Shyam on 5.5.1993 to obtain utensils. The same were handed over to him in presence of certain persons. It was alleged that utensils were not returned by Bhagwan Das and ultimately he refused to return. Police registered a case being FIR No. 51/93 and after invest...
Tag this Judgment!Kunaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN506
S.C. Mital, J.1. This petition arises out of the Criminal Case No. 12/94 (State v. Kunaram) pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sojat City under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'P.F.A. Act). The petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings of this case against him on the ground of delay in trial which violates his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The sample was taken on 30.4.1993. The charge-sheet was filed on 9.3.1993. The petitioner appeared in the court on 4.2.1994. He applied for the chemical examination of the second sample. The sample was sent and the report was received on 6.4.1994. The prosecution evidence commenced on 30.6.1994 but the first witness could be examined only on 28.10.1996 because summons were not issued by the office on five dates and on three dates the Presiding Officer was on leave. It is also relevant to note here that the Advocate were on strike o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN495
S.C. Mital, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. arises out of the Criminal Case No. 106/93 (State v. Bhanwarlal) under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'P..F.A. Act) pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City, wherein the petitioner Bhanwarlal accused has prayed for quashing the proceedings on the ground of delay in trial.2. The sample was taken on 30.4.1993 and charge-sheet was submitted on 9.12.1993. The petitioner entered appearance in the court on 4.2.1994 and submitted an application to send the second sample to Central Food Laboratory. The sample was sent on 15.2.1994 and the report was received on 6.4.1994. The case was thereafter listed for recording pre-charge evidence from 30.6.1994 to 27.8.1996 but no witness could be examined due to mainly non-appearance of the witnesses in the court on five dates. On two dates the summons were not issued by the officer and on 31.5.1996 Advocates were on stri...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj318; 2000(4)WLC755
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality of his suspension from the office of Chairman of Municipal Board, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, passed by State Government on 6-3-1998, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and further prays to reinstate him on the aforesaid office with Immediate effect, in conformity with the findings dated 15-4-1998, submitted by a Judicial Enquiry Officer of the rank of District Judge under Sub-section (3) of Section 63 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as 'Act No. 38 of 1959') appointed by State Government under subsection (2) of the said Section.2. The brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition which are necessary to dispose it off are that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of Municipal Board, Todaraisingh, District Tonk, for a fixed statutory period and was functioning as such. It is borne out from the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition that vid...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »