Rajasthan Court January 2001 Judgments
Arif Khan Vs. the Central Bureau of Narcotics
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC626; 2001(4)WLN132
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision petition against the charge which has been levelled against the petitioner.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Central Bureau of Narcotics.3. Briefly stated, on 1.7.1999 informer met Vijay Singh, Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Jaipur and wanted to come back at 6.00 p.m. with a definite information. There was information that a person may come with heroin. Rakesh Bhargava and Laxman Kataria went with the informer in a Government vehicle and saw the site. They came back at 7.30 p.m. and narrated the story to the Superintendent. Information was noted down and was communicated to Assistant Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics Kota. On the basis of this information, a party was formed which reached Rambagh Circle at about 11.30 p.m. Two independent witnesses Bhanwar Singh and Gendi Lal were also called. The information was that one Amir Khan may pass through this way on a scooter along with 1 Kg. ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC307; 2001(2)WLN420
ORDERShethna, J.(1). This special appeal is directed against the order dated 21.9.2000 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition no. 131/2000 filed by the appellant/petitioner on the ground that the controversy involved in this case was fully covered by the judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Vimla Kumari Bhargava etc. vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (1).(2). Yesterday, on 23.1.2001, when this special appeal was placed before us, learned counsel Mr. Trivedi for the appellant submitled that no such judgment or order passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court on 22.10.96, was produced by the learned AAG Mr. S.S. Bhandawat who appeared before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge simply on the oral submission made by learned AAG Mr. Bhandawat dismissed the writ petition. In view of this, we have asked Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, who is not appearing before us to produce before us the aforesaid copy of judgment and or...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2282; 2000WLC(Raj)UC407
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The abovenarned accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23-9-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 29/99 by which he convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 376 and 341, IPC and sentenced in the following manner :-- Name of convicted sentence awarded accused under appellants sction 1. Babu Lal 376 IPC Seven years RI and 2. Devi Lal to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI. 341 IPC One month SI.Both the substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :--ON 17-6-1998, PW1 Mst. Lehribai (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) gave a written report Ex. P/1 to the Supreintendent of Police, Chittorgarh in the form of a complaint stating inter-alia that she and accused appellants hailed from the same village a...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kumar Vs. Inspector General of Police
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC280; 2001(2)WLN637
ORDERShethna, J.(1). By impugned common order dated 31.3.1998, Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar removed the names of in all 9 constables from the select list on different grounds. The appellant-petitioner was one of them. The ground for removal of his name from the select list was that against him criminal case No. 2 was filed before Dhamrwali Police Station for the offences u/S. 147, 332, 353 and 323 IPC and that there was an over- writing in column No. 17 of the application form by the applicant appellant.(2). Being aggrieved by that order of removing his name from the select list, the appellant filed writ petition No. 1737/98 before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 18.10.2000. Hence, this special appeal.(3). Learned counsel Shri R.S. Saluja for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge committed grave error in dismissing his writ petition because in the instant case the ground on which his name was removed...
Tag this Judgment!Sawal Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC485; 2001(2)WLN635
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The appellant-original petitioner has challenged in the special appeal the judgment and order dated 10.10.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition No. 3147/2000 filed by him.(2) The appellant was appointed on the post of constable by a common order of appointment at Annex. 1. His services were straight away terminated by the impugnedorder dated 15.10.1984 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer on the ground that by producing forged caste certificate, he obtained service in the police department for which criminal case No. 90/84 was registered against him with the Civil Lines Police Station, Ajmer for the offences punishable u/S. 420, 467, 466 and 471 IPC. The said case was tried as criminal case No. 1672/86 by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer Court No. 3 who, by his judgment and order dated 20.1.1997, acquitted the appellant- accused by giving him benefit of doubt.(3). After the order of acquitt...
Tag this Judgment!ShahabuddIn Vs. M.D.S. University
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj1
ORDERMisra, J.(1). The petitioner is aggrieved of the fact that his admission and consequently his candidature in the Master of Business Administration (for short 'M.B.A.) (E.P.) Examination 1996 has been cancelled. The respondents are therefore, refusing to declare his result on the ground that he was not eligible for admission into the course due to invalidity of his experience certificate which he had obtained from a private employer while working as a Government employee. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was admitted into the course in the year 1993 as per the requirements of admission which included production of experience-cum-salary certificate which the petitioner had duly submitted. The petitioner thereafter completed two years course and also passed out M.B.A.- Part-I and Part-II. He also appeared in the Part-III examination and during this period an objection for the first time was raised by the respondent, questioning his eligibility for admission into the M.B...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Zafrul Hassan Iraqi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]249ITR580(Raj)
1. Hoard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It relates to the assessment for the assessment year 1987-88. In the assessment made on March 20, 1990, certain additions were made in the income of the assessee without affording an opportunity of hearing to the asses-see. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the said additions made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the asses-see and remanded the case back to the Income-tax Officer for deciding the case of additions so set aside after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Aggrieved by that order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that the additions made without affording an opportunity of hearing, being in contravention of the specific requirement of the provisions of the statute that before making any addition in the income returned by the assessee, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushma Choudhary and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj241
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present petitioners are students of Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur and are studying at Jodhpur. They have joined the M.B.B.S. Course on 8-10-1998. While they took up their 1st Year M.B.B.S. examination, they obtained supplementary. Their result of 1st Year M.B.B.S. was declared on 4-5-2000. Supplementary examinations were held from 19th July to 8th August, 2000 and their result of supplementary examination was declared on 15-11-2000. All the petitioners were declared successful.2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are denying them opportunity of sitting in the IInd M.B.B.S. because the petitioners have passed the supplementary examinations late. The case of the petitioners is that the stand of the respondents is incorrect. Regulation 7(7) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Examination, 1997 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Regulations') clearly states that the supplementary examination may be conducted within 6 months. Regulation...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2325
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1.This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 15-1-1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 327/98 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence Under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. l000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year RI.2. It arises in the following circumstances :--On 18-9-1998 at about 12-05 PM, PW-1 Dhanji lodged a report Ex. P/1 before PW-7 Bheru Singh, SHO, Police Station Dhariyawad, District Udaipur stating inter-alia that on 17-9-1998 at about 5-00 p.m., his daughter Shambhudi P.W. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) had gone to cut grass in the field of lohar, where accused-appellant came and forcibly caught hold her and tried to commit rape on her after beating her and when she made hue and cry, PW-3 Shankari came there and she also made hue and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC275; 2007(2)WLN244
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Accused petitioners Sandeep and Ram Kumar have preferred this third bail petition. First and second bail petitions were respectively dismissed by this Court on July 4, 2000 and July 18, 2000. Second bail petition has been filed on behalf of accused petitioner Naresh son of Jagdish. First bail petition of accused petitioner Naresh was dismissed by this court on July 21, 2000. As both the petitions relate to one FIR No. 15/2000, they were heard analogously and I propose to decide them by a common order.2. An FIR was registered with the Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu in connection with the murder of a candidate Birbal Singh, an old man of 75 years on the date of polling of Panchayat Elections. The murder was committed in broad day light on January 29, 2000 in a thickly populated area. According to prosecution case Harphool Singh accused was the main rival of Birbal Singh in the said election. On account of political enmity Harphool Singh alongwith 33 accused formed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »