Rajasthan Court July 2001 Judgments
Suwa Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN446
Shashi Kant Sharma, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 15.2.2001 passed by Judl. Magistrate, 1st Class, Chomu, district Jaipur, framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C.2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record.3. Counsel for the petitioners contends that in this matter complainant Madan Lal had lodged a written report before the Police Station, Govindgarh, district Jaipur, alleging that accused persons have inflicted injuries to Ramchandra by blunt weapons. On this F.I.R., a case was registered by Police for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. and after investigation challan was filed against both the accused petitioners for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. It is contended that in the matter challan was filed for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. but the Lower Court has wrongly framed the charge against these petitioners for the offences under S...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj92; 2002(2)WLN212
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has come in the fads and circumstances to be noticed hereinafter. Respondent No. 6 has lodged a complaint on 3rd July, 1989 before Tehsildar at Camp Sukharana that the petitioner appellant has forcibly taken possession of 37 bighas of land in chak 5 M.D. which is in the khatedari of applicant's husband Akura Ram and a case is going on in that regard, therefore, the said occupant be evicted and possession be delivered to the complainant. On very same day 3rd June, 1989 the report was taken from Patwari in which it was reported that Babu Singh S/o Niku Singh is residing at said land which he has purchased through registered sale deed. However the report neither says from whom Babu Singh has purchased said properly and on what dale. As would be noticed hereinafter this lack of information, only goes to show that it was made even without verifying any fact. However acting on that report on that very day an order was made that t...
Tag this Judgment!Shakoor Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN290
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 13.5.87 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 86/86 by which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused appellant for offence under. Section 376 I.P.C. but convicted him under Section 376/311 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under:Offence Sentence awarded346/511 IPC- 4 years' R/I/ and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to further undergo1 month's R.I. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances:(i) That on 15.6.86 at about 7.30 p.m., P.W. 7 Taramani D/o Kalu Ram, aged 11 years, resident of Khivasar lodged an oral report with the police station Dudhvakhar, Dist. Churu before P.W. 12 Jagdish Singh stating that on 15.6.86, she went to the field for grazing cattle and at about 11 a.m., the accused appellant who was hidden near the field of Usman came suddenly towards her and caught hold of right hand and after embracing her, put her on the ground and he did ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mohini Devi Vs. Ram Chandra Vardani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC622; 2002(2)WLN549
Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant Smt. Mohini Devi against the judgment dated 15.6.1996, whereby, the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer refused to grant the decree of divorce to the husband-petilioner Ram ChandraVardani.2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the parties were married according to the Hindu Rites on 19.4.1984 at Kishangarh District, Ajmer. They had no issue out of the wedlock, Husband Ram Chandra brought a petition against his wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act') for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. However; the husband petitioner also alleged in the petition that on 17.7.1991, the Panchayat and respective persons of the society granted decree of divorce on the basis of their mutual consent.3. Appellant-wife denied all the allegations made in the petition and stated that she never divorced her husband on 17.7.1991 before the Notary Public. She has also all...
Tag this Judgment!Chagan Lal Munnalal and anr. Vs. Riico and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN244; 2002(3)WLN244
Joshi, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Abu Road passed in the Chaganlal Munnalal and Anr. v. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited' (I), (in short hereinafter referred as RIICO'), by which the trial court accepted the application dated 3.2.99 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. by the Legal Manager, Madhav Nagrik Shahkari Bank Ltd., Abu Road.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. R.R. Nagori and Mr. B.R. Mehta, learned counsel for the non-petitioners.3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Madhav Nagrik Shahkari Bank Ltd. is neither necessary nor a proper party in the suit and the learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in impleading the bank as defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioners. It was further argued that firm M/s Chagan-mal Munnalal was a registered firm and its registration number with the R...
Tag this Judgment!Bundu Khan Vs. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR44]; 2001(3)WLC353; 2001(3)WLN711
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 4.2.1997, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4659/1996.(2). The appellant filed the above writ petition to issue directions to the respondents herein to make payment of the full amount of pension from the date of his retirement with the amount of gratuity and commutation of pension together with the encashment of privilege leave standing at the credit of the appellant on the date of retirement with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.(3). The petitioner appellant was employed in the services of the Municipal Council, Jaipur (Now Nagar Nigam, Jaipur) as 'Bhisthi' on 7.9.1958 and continued to serve in that capacity till 27.10.1994. According to the appellant, his date of birth is 1.7.1936, but it was recorded as 1.7.1926 by mistake in the service book of the appellant by the respondents at their own record. The appellant produced a certificate of birthdesired by the then Municipal Council, Jaip...
Tag this Judgment!inder Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ721; 2003(2)WLN286
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.7.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chum in Sessions Case No. 88/81 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo four years R1 and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months R1.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-On 5.10.1984 at about 11.20 PM. PW7 Ramrakharam lodged a written report Ex.P/8 with the Police Station Ladnu District Nagaur stating inter-alia that on 4.10.1984 in the morning he went to his father-in-law's house and her daughter Bhanwari. PW1, aged about 11 years (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) went to jungle for the purpose of grazing goats and in the noon, the prosecutrix went Odana Nadi for the purpose of drinking water to goats and in the Nadi, accused appellant was also grazing his flock of goats and he following prosecutrix PW1 B...
Tag this Judgment!U.O.i. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN644
Keshote, J.1. These four petitions are not only identical but the parties are also commonnd therein the identical point of law for consideration of this Court has been raised. These matters in fact and substance are identical as these four writ petition are against assessments of sales tax made for four different assessment years. Hence, these four petitions are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. For the disposal of these matters, the facts and the grounds raised to challenge the assessment orders of the sales tax passed by respondent No. 3 are taken from the writ petition No.2020/2001.3. The petitioners to carry out enormous construction works in connection with the developmental works carried out by the Ministry of Defence throughout the State of Rajasthan, they have to undertake the construction work of buildings for housing, offices and the residential accommodations of their officers and staff besides other defence work. In order to get...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh @ Ram Naresh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC688
Sharma, J.1. This criminal jail appeal by accused appellant Naresh arises out of the judgment and order dated 31.01.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur thereby holding he accused appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 and 394 I.P.C. While convicting the accused appellant, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment on the first count, and to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200A, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment, on the second count.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, are that on 12.08.1993 PW. 21 Khushal Singh. S.H.O. Police Station Bassi received an information on wire-less that someone by imputing the foot of a lady has taken away her silver anklets and her dead body is lying near Village, Kuthada. On receiving the above info...
Tag this Judgment!Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC603; 2001(3)WLN687
Sharma, J. 1. This revision filed by the complainant Shahid Khan is directed against the order dated 10.10.2000, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity in Sessions Case No. 10/99, whereby learned Judge has discharged the accused persons from the offence under Section 307 IPC and sent the case back to the A.C.J.M. No. 2 for trial for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34 IPC,2. In this matter, notices were issued to Non-Petitioners. Mr. S.C. Gupta appeared on behalf of Non-Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of State. Record of the lower court was called for. Arguments were heard.3. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that the trial court has wrongly discharged the N.P. Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is urged that Sessions Court could discharge any offender from any offence under Section 227 Cr.P.C. only if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and that court shall also record reaso...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »