Rajasthan Court May 2001 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.
Asa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC504; 2007(3)WLN85
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Short submission made by learned Counsel Shri Vyas in this petition is that the revisional court committed grave error in allowing revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2 accused after appreciating the evidence on record. He submitted that it was not open for the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to go into the evidence and decide the matter at this stage as to whether the offence is committed by the accused or not. He further submitted that, that is not the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C.2. The aforesaid submission of learned Counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner has to be appreciated in the background of few relevant facts of the case, which are as under:3. It was alleged by the petitioner in his FIR that on 25.3.1993 at 8 p.m. the respondent No. 2 accused physcially assaulted him inside his house and abuse him with his caste, thereby, he committed offence Under Sections 323, 451 and 504 IPC and Under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act.4. After c...
Vijay Soni Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC750; 2001(3)WLN161
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J.1. The petitioner being Soni (Swarankar) by caste belongs to O.B.C. category. He was one of the candidates for RHJS. He had participated in the selection process without any protest and when the result of the selection is not palatable to him, is now turning round and assailing the selection process. The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:'(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued against the respondents quashing the advertisement vide Annex. I and the selections made vide the result-sheet vide Annex.3 on the basis of the Annex. 1. (ii) Without prejudice to prayer clause (i), the selections in Other Backward Classes quota of the respondents Nos. 9 and 14 may be set aside on the basis of the grounds a,b and c. (iii) Without prejudice to prayer clauses (i) and (ii), the respondents may be directed to Fill up the fourth vacancy of Other Backward Classes quota in order of merit. (iv) Without prejudice to prayer clauses (i),(ii),(iii), the actu...
Nandlal Vs. Smt. Shankari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC530; 2001WLC(Raj)UC814
ORDERB.J. Sethna, J.1. The respondent wife filed a maintenance application against the petitioner husband before the learned Magistrate wherein she had filed an application for interim maintenance for herself and for her minor son Narayan aged 2 years. The learned Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan by his order dated 5.7.2000 awarded Rs. 350/- per month to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month to minor son Narayan by way of interim maintenance. Against such interlocutory order, no revision lies still the revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh on 20.12.2000 on both grounds of maintainability as well as on merits. These orders are challenged by the petitioner in this misc. petition.2. There is a bar of second revision petition under Section 399(3), Cr. P.C. therefore, to circumvent it, this misc. petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is filed.3. Ordinarily this Court...
Ghewar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4460; 2000(1)WLC193
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 4-4-1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 34/94, by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days imprisonment,2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :--On 19-9-1994, one Sagsingh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Nana, District Pail came to Jodhpur in connection with investigation of some case and during the course of investigation at Jodhpur, he received information that rape has been committed by accused-appellant Ghewar Ram with the daughter of PW2 Andaram. Thereafter, he immediately arrived at village Bhaniya in the District of Pali and called PW2 Andaram and his daughther Kama and upon this, PW2 Andaram desired th...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Gyan Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj369; 2001(3)WLC1; 2001(3)WLN308
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. All these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 18.11.1998 passed by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. The State of Rajasthan is the appellant in all the appeals. The learned Single Judge held that it is not open to the transport authority to grant and/or counter-sign the stage carriage permit on an inter-State route over and above the celling fixed by an inter-State agreement. The learned Single Judge has followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Janta Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. S.T.A. (1) wherein the Supreme Court has held that agreement between two States regarding fixation of strength of such permits arrivedat in compliance with court's direction; compliance with Section 63(3-A) and (3-B) and other relevant provisions of law for finalisation and implementation of the agreement directed to be made and in the meanwhile the concerned transport authorities were directed to re-consider their refusal to countersign the existing permits. The Supreme Court has also...
Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC590; 2001(4)WLN127
Parihar, J.(1). While challenging the show cause notice dated 10.4.2001in regard to disqualification of the petitioner for holding the post of Sarpanch, thepetitioner has also challenged the validity of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayat RajRules, 1996.(2). Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon a judgment of this court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1), has submitted that disqualifications of the Sarpanch can only be decided in an Election Petition and since no Election Petition has been filed against the petitioner, the State Government cannot take any action against the petitioner.(3). There is no dispute that the Election Petition under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 can be filed only by a contesting candidate. Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayal Raj Rules, 1996 is in a different context, wherein on a representation or otherwise, if it is broughl to the nolice of the State Government that member of the Pancha...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN517
Sharma, J.1. The appellants were the accused on the file of the learned Additional Session Judge Sambhar Lake, Distt. Jaipur bearing Sessions Case No. 45 of 1992. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under:1. Gopalu/Sec.147 IPCTwo years R.I, Sentence of death 10years R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000 (in default tofurther undergo one year R.I.u/Sec. 302IPCu/S.436/149 IPCu/Sec. 323IPCOne year R.I.u/S. 324/149 IPCTwo years R.I.u/Sec. 449*IPCRigorous Life Imprisonmentand fine Rs. 10,000 in default to undergo one year R.i. u/Sec. 395IPC10 year Rl and fine of Rs.10,000/- (in default lo undergo one year R.I.2. Mool Chand@ Murliu/Sec.147 IPCTwo YearR.I.RigorousLife Imprisonment10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000 (in default to further undergo one year R.l.3. Sagar S/o Rekhatamu/S.302/149 IPC4. Rameshar S/o Bhuvanau/S. 436/149 IPC5. Nivan Ram6. Molak Ram 7. Rameshwar S/o MariaRamu/Sec. 323IPCOne year R.I.u/S. 324/149 IPCTwo years R.I.8. Bhola Ram 9. Jodha Ramu/Sec. 449IPCRigorousLife ...
Hanumant Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 2003(153)ELT55(Raj)
1. Mr. Bharat Vyas, Standing counsel for Union of India accepts notice as directed by this Court. 2. This writ petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 25-4-2001 with a prayer to direct the respondent not to auction the assets ofthe petitioner concern. A further prayer was also made to permit the petitioner to pay the instalments within three years. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, they had prepared a comparative chart for instalment of period of 1 year and 3 years which comes to Rs. 3,16,752/- and Rs. 1,21,622/- per month respectively. It is stated that if three years' time is given, the petitioner would conveniently cleared off, all the outstanding dues without any difficulty. 4. The respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 25th April, 2001 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10 lacs on or before 27-4-2001 and remaining amount was to be paid in 11 monthly instalments including interest. It is stated that in order to avoid the sale of property, th...
Nathunath Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2712
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 1-5-2000 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nimbaheda convicted the accused appellants for offence under Section 376(2)(f), IPC and sentenced him to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' S.I.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 16-3-99 at about 6-30 p.m. P.W. 8 Smt. Pushpa lodged an oral report Ex. P/11 before P.W. 12 Brijendra which was reduced by P.W. 12 Brijendra in writing and the same is marked a Ex. P/11, stating that on that day, at about 5 p.m. when she was going to market along with her daughter, Jyoti P.W. 9 aged 4 years (hereinafter referred to as 'the prosecutrix') on the way accused appellant who was brother of P.W. 8 Smt. Pushpa met him and he told him that he had come from Nimbaheda and he went to her house along with her daughter, P.W. 8 Smt. Pushpa told h...
Bhagwania Vs. State Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3719
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant from jail against the judgment and order dated 26-6-1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 18/99 (53/99) by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376(2)(f), IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month.2. Since it is a jail appeal and accused-appellant was not being represented by anybody, therefore, this Court vide order dated 18-8-2000 appointed Mr. Vijay Purohit, as Amicus Curiae and he has argued this appeal on behalf of the accused-appellant.3. It arises in the following circumstances :--On 1-12-1998 at about 10.15 PM, PW-1 Amra lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before PW-13 Lal Singh, ASI, Police Station Parsola District Udaipur stating inter alia that on that day he and his wife PW-2 Rukmani were digging their...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›