Rajasthan Court August 2001 Judgments
Lala Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR1073]; 2002(5)WLC730; 2002(4)WLN281
Sharma, J.1. Three appellants along with one Mangtu Ram were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror, Distt. Alwar in Sessions Case No. 53/92 (70/91) for having committed the murder of Angana Ram. During the course of trial Mangtu Ram died and proceedings against him were dropped. Onconclusion of trial all the three appellants were found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge as under :1. Lala Ram : Under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in2. Mahipal @ Pappu : default to further suffer 6 months SI.Under Section 323/34 IPC 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer 15 days SI.3. Hukam Chand : Under Section 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- indefault to further suffer 6 months SI.Under Section 323 IPC 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer 15 days SI. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The machinery of the prosecution was set in m...
Tag this Judgment!Lehru Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC471
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 14.5.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No. 38/97 (208/97) by which the learned Judge convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 304(1) I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further undergo 6 months' S.I. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: On 7.2.97, at about 2.30 p.m. P.W. 4 Mohan lodged a written report Ex.P/5 in the Police Station Raipur, Dist. Pali, before P.W. 9 Jai Singh, SHO of the police station, alleging that at about 12 noon, when he was in his house his nephew P.W. 5 Prema came and told him that Girdhari Kaka (hereinafter referred to as the Dec'eased) had been killed by the accused appellant in the well of P.W. 2 Hajari and he was going towards the field. He has further stated in the report Ex.P/5 that P.W. 5 Prema was Informed about that Incident by P.W. 2 Hajari...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC187
Sharma, J.1. The appellant got superannuated on April 30, 1995. The State Government granted him provisional pension vide order dated August 26, 1996 under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Thereafter learned Judge A.C.D. Cases Jaipur City convicted and sentenced the appellant on Sept. 15, 1999 under Sections 7 read with 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Criminal case No. 3/95. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant were ordered to be suspended by the High Court under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. in an appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Judge ACD Cases.2. In view of the aforequoted conviction of the appellant the State Government decided to withhold the cent per cent pension of the appellant invoking Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1958 (for short CCA Rules) and referred the matter for approval to Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer and after receivin...
Tag this Judgment!Autolite (India) Ltd. Jaipur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC60
Naolekar, J.1. In these writ petitions, ordered passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur in exercise of powers under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are under challenge. It so happened that against the petitioners assessment orders were passed levying excise duty and penalty. All the petitioners approached the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise in appeal. Applications have been moved under Section 35F of the Act of 1944 to the Commissioner (Appeals) claiming exemption to deposit the duly demanded or penalty levied as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal. The Commissioner without hearing the parties dismissed the applicants. The wording used while dismissing the applications are:-'....In the light of the above, I have considered the stay application, and am of the opinion that the appellants have failed to make out a prima facie case that deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to the appellants in the event of their application f...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Plaster and Minerals Vs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR533]; (2002)IIILLJ141Raj; 2002WLC(Raj)UC389
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated November 29, 1994 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, whereby an application filed by appellant under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') was rejected. The learned E.I. Court reached to the conclusion that in the year 1986-87 and thereafter, 8 or more than 8 employees were working in the firm owned by the appellant and, therefore, covered by provisions of the Act. The E.I. Court further relied on statements of D.W. 1 Ravi Kumar and D. W. 2 Suresh Chandra Kaushik as also relied on Ex. 1-A, wherein at the time of inspection carried out vide Ex. A-1 by the ESI Inspector D.W. 2, Suresh Chandra Kaushik 10 persons were found working in the appellant firm. List of which is mentioned in Ex. 1-A bearing signature of one Shri Kesri Singh who was an employee of the appellant firm from October 22, 1987 to March, 1990.2. The learned El Court further reached to the conclusion that the dem...
Tag this Judgment!Usha JaIn Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC1; 2002(1)WLN669
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present special appeal has been filed by the appellant petitioner against the judgment dated 11.8.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner claims that she obtained B.T.C. degree from Uttar Pradesh in the year 1976, which was treated by the State of Rajasthan equivalent to B.S.T.C. of Rajasthan till 11.6.1980 when the Deputy Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner has issued an order whereby this degree was derecognised. The petitioner claims that she was appointed as a Trained Teacher vide order dated 5.4.1980 vide Annex. 1. Annex. 1 states that the petitioner is appointed until the end of the sessions or regularly selected candidates are available. The petitioner's further case is that she has been regularly paid salary. Every year she was appointed with a break of summer vacation. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. Vijay Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(NULL)17
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.These are the six appeals preferred by the revenue out of which Appeals Nos. 1537 to 1539/Jp/1992 are directed against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 16-3-1992, for assessment year 1987-88 whereas the remaining Appeals Nos. 1496 to 1498/Jp/1993 are directed against the three different orders of Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, all dated 13-9-1993, for 1986-87. As the issue involved in these appeals is common the same are taken up together for disposal by a single order for the sake of convenience.2. The only ground taken by the revenue which is common in all these appeals reads as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in cancelling the assessment made under section 143(3)/148 by placing reliance on the decision of Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Brig. B. Lall v. WTO , as the said proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and is not applicable...
Tag this Judgment!Netra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN105; 2002(3)WLN105
Verma, J.1. The petitioners are the Constables in Railway Protection Force and are aggrieved against the order dated 6.9.1999 and 8.9.1999 perporting totransfer them to Railway Prolection Special Force (here-in-after referred to as the Special Force).2. The challenge is made mainly on the ground that they cannot be transferred to special force which is a separate cadre to one where the petitioners are posted. The Railway Protection Force is governed by the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules) and there are three branches on a Zonal Railway, namely; Executive Branch, Prosecution Branch and Fire Service Branch with their definite functions.3. All the petitioners were appointed initially as Constables in the Railway Fire Service about more than 10 years back. Sometime in the year 1992, the respondent had decided to close the Fire Service Branch, the staff in RPF were ordered to be merged with the Executive Branch of the RPF as per circular dated 16...
Tag this Judgment!Atar Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN656
Parihar, J.1. A first information report came to be lodged at Police Station-Kishangarhbas, District-Alwar on 4.6.2000 at 10.05 A.M. by one Hulla for an incident alleged to have taken place on the same date at 6.00 A.M. It was alleged in the report that Deena, elder brother of the complainant, was assaulted by the persons named in the FIR resulting in death of the injured Deena on way to the hospital.2. Though, number of persons were named in the FIR, however, the investigating agency, after investigation, submitted charge- sheet against only two persons namely; Juber Khan and Fajju and negative report was filed in respect of other persons named in the FIR.3. After the case been committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbas, charges were framed against the two persons namely; Juber Khan and Fajju. After commencement of the trial, two eye witnesses were examined namely; PW-1 Hulla and PW-2 Sabuddin, After recording the evidence of above two witnesses, an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Swaran Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC249
Singh, J.1. Accused appellant Swaran Singh has allegedly murdered his own father-in-law Teja Singh at about 9.30 P.M. on 16.5.1977 in the agricultural field by causing blows on the vital parts from iron sabbal. The hue and cry attracted PW-2 Balvindra Singh son of deceased as also PW-1 Hemaram followed by PW-3 Manga Singh and PW-5 Jodgendra Kaur son and wife respectively of the deceased.2. A written FIR Ex.P/2 was lodged by Balvindra Singh at 11.30 P.M. on 16.5.1997 itself. Accused appellant Swaran Singh was put under arrest at 6.15 P.M. on 17.5.1997. He gave a voluntary disclosure statements Ex.P/24 at 4.00 P.M. on 18.5.1997 and in pursuance thereof got a sabbal recovered vide Ex.P/14 from his residential house on 19.5.1997 which was sealed there and then.3. After usual investigation accused was challaned and charged for offence of murder by the trial court. Upon his pleading not guilty and claiming trial prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. In statement given ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »