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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj285; 2002(3)WLN37; 2002(3)WLN37
Garg, J. 1. Both the revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as both have been preferred against the order dated 4.4.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No. 123/96 (6/96) by which he rejected the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecution to summon Garib Ram, as an additional accused. 2. They arise in the following circumstances :- On 15.10.1995 at about 1.40 AM, PW-4 Rama Kishan gave a parchabayan to the . Police Station Gotan District Nagaur that on 14.10.1995 he, PW-1 Ramrakh and Teja Ram were going on a Motor- cycle and since near the house of accused Mangilal, Jeep and Truck were standing, there was no place to go towards the street and, therefore, they stopped the motor cycle and near the Jeep and Truck, Garib Ram, Mangilal, Ramniwas and Nainaram were standing and they asked them why they had come there and PW-1 Ramrakh told that they were going to house and upon this, they started beatin...
Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj235; 2002(4)WLN223
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioneragainst the judgment and order dated 12.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No. 84/2001 by which he maintained conviction of theaccused petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC recorded by the learnedAddl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 11.12.1998 passed inCriminal Case No. 49/98, but reduced the sentence of the accused petitioner for thesaid offence in the following manner :- Sentence awarded bylearned ACJMSentence reduced by thelearned Sessions JudgeTwo years SI and to paya fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SIfor six months.One year SI and to pay afine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI forthree months.2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition, short, are as follows :- On 20.6.1990 at about 10.45 AM, PW5 Bhagha lodged an oral report Ex.P/9 with the Police Statio...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Ajay Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1070; 2002(3)WLC187; 2002(5)WLN180
Calla, J.1. Respondent herein was given an appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975, (for short 'The Rules of 1975). The appointment order was issued in his favour for the post of Programmer on 23.3.1990 and at that time, the post of Programmer was not included in any set of Rules and it appears that it must have been created as an ex cadre post. While the respondent was continuing as Programmer on the basis of appointment order dated 23.3.1990 the Rajasthan Computer State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 (for short The Rules of 1992') were promulgated on 5.1.1993. The question, therefore, arose as to how the respondent could become a member of service? Under the Rajasthan Computer State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1992, he was subjected to screening under Rule 6(1)(ii) and was found to be suitable.2. In our opinion it was not necessary to subject him to screening proviso (ii)...
inderjeet Goel Vs. Dilip Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1175]; (2002)IIILLJ926Raj; 2002(3)WLN120
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Issue notice.Mr. C.S. Kotwani appears for therespondent No. 3. For the purposes of thisappeal respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are notnecessary to be served as their rights are notaffected in any view of the matter Hence theirservice is dispensed with. This appeal has come in peculiar circumstances. The respondent No. 1 was an employee of the State in the Public Health & Engineering Department at Nohar Division in Sri Ganganagar district. While he was working as Beldar, his services were alleged to be terminated on January 7, 1987 unceremoniously which led to raising of an industrial dispute and a reference to Labour Court to examine the validity of alleged termination of service. The award of labour Court dated July 19, 1993 resulted in holding the retrenchment to be invalid and direction to reinstate the workman with full back wages.2. Aggrieved with that award, a writ petition was filed before this Court. The petitioner in the...
Kana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1867; 2003WLC(Raj)UC461; 2002(1)WLN695
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 1-5-1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur by which the learned Special Judge accepted the appeal of two accused persons, namely Ramswaroop and Smt. Jasoda and they were acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections 147, 341 and 454, I.P.C. but appeal of the accused petitioner Kana Ram was partly allowed in the manner that his conviction for offence under Sections 147, 341 and 454, I.P.C. was maintained but instead of sentencing him, he was ordered to be released on probation and the judgment and order dated 10-11-1994 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate No. 3 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner and Smt. Jasoda and Ramswaroop for offence under Sections 147, 341 and 454, , I.P.C. was modified to the above extent. The learned Special Judge also set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate by which ...
Niyaz Mohd. Khan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC562; 2002(2)WLN683
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.1998 rejecting the writ petition on a hyper technical ground because of the over-writing in the annexure filed alongwith the writ petition. The petition was dismissed even without issuing notice to the respondents.3. As will be presently seen that after the appeal was admitted and respondents were required to file reply, in fact, avernments on the basis of which this petition was founded were not disputed. The petitioner while working as a Teacher Gr. III in the Panchayat Samiti had competed for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance of Advertisement dated 3rd Oct., 1994. The Advertisement was for 26 posts. The petitioner got selected and his name was recommended by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, however the Govt. rejected the recommendation of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the case of petition...
Jaspal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1722; 2002(1)WLN691
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the Judgment dated 28-7-1990 passed by the learned Addl, Sessions Judge, No, 2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 8/90 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 23-12-1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 397/86 by which the learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to 1 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 1 month's R.I.2. It arises in the following circumstances :On 17-8-1986, five live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner and on the basis of said recovery, a case was registered against him.3. After investigation police filed challan against the accused petitioner for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.4. On 10-8-1988, the l...
Jassu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN688
D.N. Joshi, J.1. Both these petitions arise out of the same order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaitaran in case No. 17/2001 Under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. by which the disputed property was attached and Tehsildar, Raipur was appointed as a Receiver of the property.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the non-petitioners Ogaria through his Counsel Mr. Suresh Kumbhat that in view of the judgment of this Court in Sita Ram v. Kashi Ram reported in 1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) (Suppl.) 20 and Orde Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 1996(2) RCD (Raj.) P. 297, a revision lies against the impugned order and the proceedings Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are misconceived. It was further argued that the revision filed by Pakuri and Ors. should not be entertained as it has been filed by passing the hierarchy of judicial courts Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. This Court as well as the Session Court h...
Chandmal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN736
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant filed the writ petition originally in 1995 alleging that he had not been granted the selection grade while serving as Class-IV with the respondents. The respondents filed a reply and placed on record the Govt. Order dated 20th Sept., 1986 in pursuance of which the petitioner had been given selection grade by putting him in Scale No. 2 from Scale No. 1 w.e.f. 1.1.1985. This fact was not disclosed. However, the petitioner faced with this situation sought to built up entirely new case beyond the scope of the writ petition by alleging that by the order dated 20th Sept., 1986 which was duly served on him selection grade was not properly given to him and that order must be treated to be erroneous and not an order of grant of selection grade. By grant of selection grade the appellant now desires to be put in the cadre of Class-III services from the echeleon of Class-IV services, which in our opinion, changes the entir...
State of Raj. Vs. Mana Singh, Etc. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN719
Mr. Mathur, J.1. This group of State appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2001.2. The respondent-petitioners are the convict under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. They are undergoing the sentence awarded by the trial court. They have been denied parole under the Rajasthan Release of Prisoners on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Parole Rules') in view of the provisions of Section 32A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court in (1) Dadu v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2000 SC 3203 held as under :--'Considering the provisions of 'the Rules' as they exist today and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dadu Vs State of Maharashtra, this court feels that there is no impediment wherein it can be said that the petitioners cannot apply for grant of parole.'3. The learned Single Judge accordingly directed as follows :--'The responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »