Rajasthan Court May 2001 Judgments
State Vs. Gopal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3873; I(2002)DMC293; 2002(1)WLN185
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Slate of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 20.4.93 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda in Sessions case No. 22/92 by which he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances:(i) On 4.7.88, at about 10 p.m. P.W. 13 Laxman Singh who was S.I. in the Police Station Nimbaheda received an information from the Medical Officer Dr. R.D. Bhatt P.W. 15 from the Hospital and receiving that information, P.W. 13 Laxman Singh reached the hospital where Prem Chand was there and he informed orally to P.W. 13 Laxman Singh staling that in the morning all the persons of his family had gone to the field in the house wife of his son Gopal, namely Ram Kumari (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was alone and in the noon, when he went to his house, he found the deceased unconscious and then he called his wife P.W. 4 Lahar Bai who was liv...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC213; 2001(4)WLN630
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.3.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 32/90 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months RI.2. It arises in the following circumstances:On 25.1.1990 at about 9.00 PM, PW.5 Moddi (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) accompanied by her father PW.4 Heeralal lodged an oral report Ex.P/8 in the Police Station, Beghu District Chittorgarh stating inter-alia that on the evening of that day, when she was returning from the well after taking vegetables to her house, on the way the house of the accused appellant was there and accused appellant was in his house and he called the prosecutrix PW.5 Moddi and on being asked, she ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Kanchan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC724; 2007(3)WLN568
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Since a very short point is involved, the Public Prosecutor present in the court is directed to take notice and the petition is heard finally.2. This Cr. Misc. petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jataran by which he ordered that the petitioner be sent to Women Protection Home, Jaipur be set aside.3. It arises, in the following circumstances.A report was lodged by Shri Bhanwar Lal in the Police Station, Jaitaran on 2.5.2000 and the same was registered as FIR No. 102/2000 for offence Under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(XII) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is alleged in the report that the petitioner was kidnapped by Amar Singh in Nov., 1999 and again on 16.4.2000.4. During pendency of investigation, the petitioner herself came to the police Station, Jaitaran and police took her in its possession and produce...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ355; 2002(3)WLN162; 2002(3)WLN162
Garg, J.(1). The above mentioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both of them have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 26.10.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 295/97, by which he acquitted accused Rameshwarlal of the charge for the offence under Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'), but simultaneously convicted accused appellants Ashok Kumar and Jaspal in Appeal No. 708/99 and accused appellant Hussain Mohd. in Appeal No. 698/99 for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years' Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year RI.(2). The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:-PW 14 Kaji Nasim Ahmad, Inspector (Preventive Cell), Central Narcotics Bureau, Chittorgarh filed a complaint ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramesh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN520
Mathur, J. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, by judgment dated 7th September, 2000, has convicted the respondent Ramesh of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death. He has submitted the proceedings to this court for confirmation of the death sentence, which has been registered as D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 2/2000 'State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh'. The conviction and sentence has also been challenged by filing a joint appeal on behalf of accused respondents Ramesh and Suraj. The second appellant Suraj has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted of the offence under Section 394/397 IPC and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Udaipur Vs. Sewalal Gafarlal Banswara
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC692; 2002(1)WLN27
Balia, J. 1. At the Instance of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, these three appeals filed against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dt. 19th June, 2001 holding that the initiation of proceedings under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment years in question namely 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 were barred by time and also that the proceedings were bad because notices have not been issued to all the members of the erstwhile HUF which has since been partitioned. As all the appeals raise common issue on same set of facts, we have heard the same together and propose to decide by this common order.2. For the convenience we notice the facts realising to assessment year 1982-83. The facts of the case are that HUF viz. M/s. Sewalal Gafarlal was disrupted by a total partition on 16.11.82 and order under Section 20 of me Wealth Tax Act, to that effect was recorded on 3rd October, 1986. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC749; 2002(1)WLN359
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. All the six appellants, namely, Laxman, Heera Lal, Blrdhi Lal, Kanhaiya Lal, Ram Chandra and Gopal were the accused on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar Camp at Aklera bearing Sessions Case No. 174/1993. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 147 IPC Six months RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default tofurther undergo one month R.I.)Under Section 148 IPC Six months RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default tofurther undergo one month R.I.)Under Section 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- (in defaultto further undergo one month R.I.)Under Section 307/149 IPC Seven Y0ears RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default tofurther undergo one month R.I.)Under Section 325/149 IPC Three Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default tofurther undergo one month R.I.)Under Section 326/149 IPC Seven Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default tofurther undergo one month R.I.)Under Section 324/149 IPC Three months RI and f...
Tag this Judgment!Merta Trade and Industries Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC524(Raj); 2001(3)WLC757; 2001(3)WLN499; 2002(1)WLN302
Balia, J.1. In these three writ petitions, though multiple reliefs have been sought including declaration of 'turn- over tax' imposed by the Stale by inserting Section 13-A in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 as ultra vires and unconstitutional but at the time of hearing, taking notice of the fact that competence of the State legislature to levy turn over tax has been upheld by the Supreme Entry 54 of List II (State List) in Schedule VII of the Constitution as an additional tax on sale or purchase of goods, the contentions have been confined to this extent that the impugned provisions are repugnant to Central Sales Tax Act because they do not restrict the 'levy of tax' in thecase of 'turn over' relating to sale or purchase of goods which have been declared under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act as of special importance in the course of interstate trade and commerce to the extent of rate until prescribed under Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act in aggregate, therefore, it c...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Gautam Textiles Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(NULL)169
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.These two appeals one by the assessee being ITA No. 226/Jd/1999 and the other by the revenue being ITA No. 318/Jd/1999 are cross-appeals directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 11-3-1999 and hence the same are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. First we take up the assessees appeal being ITA No. 226/Jd/1999, in which the assessee has raised the solitary grounds disputing the trading addition of Rs. 2,07,506 confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals).3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee-firm carrying on a business of textile processing and printing, filed its return of income on 30-10-1996 in compliance to a notice issued under section 148 declaring a total income of Rs. 22,370. This return was initially processed under section 143(1)(a) on 21-4-1997. A survey under section 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 6-8-1993, and consequently the case was...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh Vs. Jagdish and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN514
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The plaintiff moved an application Under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC and prayed that a partnership deed executed between the defendants dated 28.3.1986 may be summoned from the Income Tax department, upon which the learned trial court allowed the application of the plaintiff-non-petitioner by order dated 30.3.2001 against which the petitioner has moved this revision petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court has no jurisdiction to summon record of any other department except the court Under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner the relevant provision for summoning of document from any other department except the court is Order 16 Rule 1 and Order 16 Rule 6 CPC, therefore, the impugned order Under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC is absolutely illegal and contrary to law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further vehemently submitted that even Under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC the mandatory re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »