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.
Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN615
Balia, J.1. This petition has come up for consideration for the reason that the parole application filed by the appellant has been rejected primarily on the ground that the prisoner in question is resident of a place which is out-side the State of Rajasthan. He has already been denied parole. For this reason the petitioner has also referred to Article 21 and Article 14 stating that denying a parole on the ground of residence alone results in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15 and 21. This necessitated examining the validity of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958.2. In view of the aforesaid, the contention raised by the appellant in his application, who is not represented by the counsel, we issued notice to Advocate General for assisting the Court in the matter.3. The Advocate General has urged that under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules'), there is no absolute bar ag...
Karnel Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj305; 2002(3)WLC169; 2002(2)WLN660
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 10.10.85 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No. 28/83 by which he while acquitting the accused appellant for offence under Sections 307 I.P.C. convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 333 and 332 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under : OffenceSentence awardedU/Sec.333 I.P.C.3 years' R.I. and a fineof Rs. 100/- in default to further undergo 1 month's S.I.U/Sec.332 I.P.C.1 & 1/2 years' R.I.Both the sentences wereordered to run concurrently.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 9.2.81, P.W.1 Jagdish gave Parcha Bayan, Ex.P/1 to the Police stating that he was under employment of Forest Department and his duty was in the area of 16BLD (B). On 8.2.81, when he was on duty at about 6 p.m., one Badri was grazing his cattle in the jungle and upon this he told Badri not to graze cattle in the jungle, then from the b...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Bhanwari Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN730
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 9.3.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant upholding the order of the District Judge, Bikaner, dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce.2. The necessary facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant Ramesh Kumar filed a petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of disolution of marriage with the respondent Smt. Bhanwari Devi. The appellant marriage with the respondent Smt. Bhanwari Devi in July, 1982 in accordance with the Hindu rites. She hardly stayed for 4 to 5 days with him and then left for her parents house at Dungargarh. She returned after two months and stayed hardly for three days and left the house without any information to him. He came to know that she left the house in the company of one Meghwal. He lodged the missing report at Police Station, Sujangarh. She was found roaming in the...
Mohan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3438; 2002(2)WLN643
Garg, J. 1. These two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated6.2.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 29/96 by which he acquitted the accused respondents Shanker Lal, Mangilal, Suresh Chandra and Nanuram for the offence under Sections 366/149, 376/149, 379, 379/149 1PC and he also acquitted the accused appellants Mohan for the offence under Section 376/149, 379/149 and Udailal for the offence under Section 376 IPC, but convicted accused appellants Mohan for the offence under Section 366 and Udailal for the offence under Sections 366 and 379 IPC and sentenced them in the following manner:- Name of accused appellantsConvicted u/Sec.Sentence awarded1. Mohan366 IPCThree years' RI and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in defaultof payment of fine, to further undergo SI for six months.2. Udailal366 IPCThree years' RI and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in defaultof payment o...
Dr. Om Prakash Chandak Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC201; 2002(2)WLN710
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner-appellant against the order of rejecting his representation against-adverse entries made in his Annual Confidential Rolls for the Financial Year 1994-95 and 1995-96. It relates to the period during which the petitioner was posted at Phalodi as Junior Specialist (Pediatric) and as Incharge of the Govt. Dispensary Phalodi which comes under jurisdiction of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jodhpur.3. Primarily the petitioner's contention before the learned Single Judge had been that adverse entries have been entered in his Annual Confidential Rolls of the years in question because of the malafide intention of respondent No. 4 the then Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur, without there being any material before him for the relevant period. Merely because he has been arrayed in contempt petition filed by h...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›