Rajasthan Court January 2002 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.
Bihari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1716; 2002(1)WLN684
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24-5-1995 of the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Case, Udaipur whereby the accused-appellant Bihari Lal was found guilty under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-stances Act, 1985 (for short 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and was awarded a sentence of 10 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. One Lac. In default, he has been ordered to further undergo R.I. for a period of two years.2. The facts, in brief, are that the personnel of the Central Narcotics Bureau, Udaipur were given some secret information and on the basis of the said information, a bus bearing No. RJ 14-P/2284 coming from Chittorgarh was stopped at Karanpura cross-roads at 10.30 a.m. The driver and the conductor of the bus were requested to act as 'Motbirs' and thereafter, a search was made, during which, the accused-appellant Biharilal, who was travelling on seat No. 29 was searched. He allegedly was carrying a bag which was found in his lap and the bag y...
Raju Alias Kurshu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1720
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been received by Post through Jail against the judgment dated 15-5-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar District Sri Ganganagar. The appellant Raju alias Kurshu has been found guilty under Sections 307, 326, 324, I.P.C. For the offence under Section 307, IPC, the appellant has been awarded seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' R.I. Under Section 326, IPC, he has been awarded three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and for non payment of fine, he has been ordered to further undergo R.I. for three months. For the offence under Section 324, IPC one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and one month's R.I. has been ordered, if the amount of fine is not paid.2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused was employed as a labourer to work in the field of injured Harbans Singh. On 16-2-1999 at about 7.30 p.m. both were in the field, the water from ...
Kasan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1460
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 23-3-2001 delivered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banswara holding camp at Kushalgarh whereby the accused-appellant was found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.P.C. For the offences under Sections 363 and 366 and 376, I.P.C. For the offences under Sections 363 and 366 identical sentences of rigorous imprisonment for three years' and fine of Rs. 500/- in each case were awarded and in default of payment of fine one month's extra simple imprisonment was awarded for each offence. For the offence under Section 376 sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- was awarded and in default of payment of tine further simple imprisonment for three months' was awarded.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Kaliya (P.W. 1) on 4-5-1999 at 3.15 p.m. lodged the written FIR Ex. P1, at Police Station Kalinjara. According to the FIR the accused on 2...
Ayub Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1619
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-Ayub Khan against the judgment dated 13-7-2001 of the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. cases, Pratapgarh whereby the appellant-Ayub Khan was found guilty under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subtances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and was awarded 10 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. For non-payment of fine, he has been ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonmnet for a period of 2 years.2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 27-1-1999 the S.H.O. of Police Station, Arnod, District Chittorgarh P.W. 11 Anil Joshi at 3.00 p.m. received a secret information to the effect that the accused-Ayub Khan was likely to go towards village Devaldi from village Kotri via bus stand Faredi with illicit opium. The information was recorded in the 'Rojnamcha' as Ex. P/20 and the S.H.O. proceeded to effect a 'Nakabandi' at a place between village Devaldi and the bus s...
Smt. Bhuri Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC367; 2002(3)WLN94
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a Sarpanch. An enquiry was initiated against her in terms of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and pending enquiry, she was suspended. The petitioner has challenged the action of suspending her during pendency of the enquiry. The case of the petitioner is that allegation against the petitioner falls short of requirement of Section 38(1)(a) and no enquiry can be initiated against her. The allegation against her is the non-supply of documents despite State Government directives. Under Rule 323, only inspection could be permitted and supply of documents is not permissible. The petitioner was heading an institution and it had right to regulate its functions in accordance with law. As and when, an action like the impugned for suspension is taken, the same encroaches upon the fundamental character of such institution. The petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1996(2) WLC Rajasthan 497 (Na...
Ahmed HussaIn Vs. Kanti Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC544; 2002(2)WLN732
D.N. Joshi, J.1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.1.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 17/2000, by which he dismissed the appeal against the order of Civil Judge (J.D.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (East) Bhilwara passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 80/2000 - Kantilal and Anr. v. Ahmed Hussain and Anr. on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Heard Mr. K.R. Jangid, learned Counsel for the petitioner-revisionist and Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner filed a civil suit against the defendant M/s. Indermal Jeetmal, a registered partnership firm at Bhilwara for eviction and arrears of rent being Civil Suit No. 303/82- Ahmed Hussain v. Firm M/s. Indermal Jeetmal in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. This suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was ...
Arun Singhal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC783
Madan, J.1. Though the malter was listed for on respondents' application for vacation of stay order dated 15.10.2001 but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being decided finally since the argumentsadvanced during the course of hearing by the learned counsel touch upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the fact that the career of large number of students, who are to be appointed on the post of Teachers is involved in the instant matter.2. The grievance, which has been raised in the writ petition is that both the petitioners are having the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-11 (Science) in pursuance of the adverlisement dated 11.9.1998 (Ann. 1) issued by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur and hence, they should have been given appointment on the said post. Their contention is two fold (i) that atleast 35 posts of Teacher Grade-II in all were advertised and the appointment was subject to fulfil...
Yaru Khan Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC456
R. Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was detained by order dated 20th June, 2001 made by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer Under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been made by recording satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on number or grounds.3. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been served with grounds of detention dated 22.6.2001 only but the original order of detention dated 20th June, 2001 and order of confirmation of detention order dated 26th June, 2001, were not served on the detenu at all and order of confirmation has been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the detenu to make a representation before the State Government or the Board. In connection with this it was submitted by the petitioner that in the meeting of advisory Board the pet...
Patwari and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC780
Sharma, J.1. Agricultural land which is subject matter of dispute, was allotted in favour of sixth respondent (for short the allottee) by Sub District Collector Gangapur City on January 31, 1992. The petitioners assailed the order of allotment by making application under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules 1970 (for short 1970 Rules). The Additional District Collector Sawai Madhopur allowed the application and set aside the allotment vide order dated December 22, 1993. Appeal preferred by the allottee against the order of Additional District Collector was accepted by the Revenue Appellate Authority Sawai Madhopur vide judgment dated July 14, 1995 and the allotment of land was held valid. The petitioners assailed the order of the revenue appellate authority before the Board of Revenue Ajmer (for short the Board) by filing revision under Sec. 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (for short 1956 Act). The Board dismissed the re...
Yaru Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN701
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was detained by order dated 20th June, 2001 made by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been made by recording satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on number of grounds.3. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been served with grounds of detention dated 22.6.2001 only but the original order of detention dated 20th June, 2001 and order of confirmation of detention order dated 26th June, 2001, were not served on the detenue at all and order of confirmation has been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the detenue to make a representation before the State Government or the Board. In connection with this it was submitted by the petitioner that in the meeting of Advisory Board the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »