Rajasthan Court March 2002 Judgments
Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC519; 2002(3)WLN353
Harbans Lal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment dated 9.2.1984 of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 12/83 whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted of the offence Under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of which, to further undergo R.I. for one month.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the deceased Bilal Mev was married to Mst. Haseena r/o Odaka, who is the daughter of Mst. Asarfi. On 14.12.1982 at about 12 noon Bilal Mev was returning back for the first time after the marriage from the place of his inlaws alongwith his wife and mother-in-law, who were sitting in a bullock cart, which was being driven by Suleman. When they were passing through the nalla of Village Mubarakpur, the accused appellant came on a bicycle from behind them whose bicycle hit Bilal on hi...
Tag this Judgment!Bheema and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN598
D.N. Joshi, J.1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi passed on 7th October. 1991 in Sessions case No. 92/84 (81/83), whereby each petitioner has been convicted Under Section 176 I.P.C. and sentenced to 25 days simple imprisonment.2. It was intimated to the Court by the learned Counsel for the revisionist-petitioners that petitioners Manaram and Ganeshram have died and the photo-stat copies attested by the Notary Public of the death certificates issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death Registration, Gram Panchayat, Peethapura have been placed before the Court. Peethapura. As per certificates, Mana Ram and Ganesha Ram died on 10th December. 1996 and Ganesha Ram died on 2nd July, 1997 respectively. There is no reason to disbelieve the certificates issued by the competent authority and therefore, the proceedings as far as against Manaram and Ganesharam are concerned, are being abated. The Court has to decide the case with ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Nazim Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC432
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by accused appellant Mohd. Nazim has been preferred against the judgment and order dated September 29, 2000 passed by the Special Judge (Communal Riots Cases), Tonk by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 304(I) I.P.C. and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month.2. Succinctly stated the contextual facts of the case are, that on 12.8.1998, PW 1 Ahmed Khan, complainant lodged a written report, Ex. P1 at Police Station Kotwali, Tonk alleging therein that while his grand son Kafil along with PW 5 Irfan and PW 14 Arif was on way to market, appellant Mohd. Nazim called all of them at his shop and asked Kafil (since deceased) as to where the goat has eaten his male organ, where the stitches were put and that why he was defaming him. There-upon, some altercation took place between accused Nazim and deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN508; 2002(3)WLN508
Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant Opetitioner against the order dated 7.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 41/99 by which he rejected the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by which he prayed that cognizance for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. be further taken against the respondents Kama Ram, Smt. Chothi and Mohan Ram as additional accused.2. It arises in the following circumstances :(i) On the report of complainant- petitioner which was filed on 14.6.99 in the Police Station Nokha, Distt. Bikaner, a challan was filed against Asu Ram, Tulchha Ram and Rakma Devi for offence under Section 498-A and 304-B l.P.C. about the dowry death of Smt. Durga.3. When the trial of that case was going on, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by P.P. with a prayer that respondents No. 2 to 4, namely, Kama Ram, Smt. Chothi and Mohan Ram be further added as add...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Sadasukh Gurjar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ549Raj; 2002(5)WLC166
Madam, J. 1. The undisputed facts are that non petitioner No. 1 filed a claim statement before Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur contending inter-alia that he was engaged by the appellant Corporation on 9.9.1987 and continued to work till 1/9/88. However, w.e.f. 1.9.88 his services were discontinued by the Corporation and as on the said date he completed 240 days of service. The concerned employee has also submitted his affidavit in support of his claim petition. The employer thereaftersubmitted its reply contending therein that since the employee had worked only for a fixed term on contract basis and as per the terms of last order by which his services were extended by the Corporation, it was directed that his services were required only till 1.9.88. Hence, by a logical corollary, the services of respondent workman being for a fixed term and the nature of term also contractual and this fact was within his full knowledge that he had rendered services to the Corporation on contract basis and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chand Chhipa Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj169; 2002(2)WLC779; 2002(5)WLN128
Parihar, J.1. A charge sheet for the offence under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and Section 120-B IPC was filed against the petitioner before the Court of the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Jaipur. It has been alleged that while working as Junior Accountant, Panchayat Samiti, Doodu, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- from one Gopal Lal Soni for payment of sanctioned amount to the said Gopal Lal Soni in Indira Avaas Yojna. After being trapped, a sum of Rs. 300/- was recovered from the pocket of the petitioner.2. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 19 of the Act before the trial court on 18.5.1999, alleging therein that since the sanction for prosecution was granted by the competent authority under pressure the proceedings against the petitioner may be dropped. The application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 17.12.1999, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Nazim Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj70
Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by accused appellant Mohd. Nazim has been preferred against the judgment and order dated September 29, 2000 passed by the Special Judge (Communal Riotes Cases), Tonk by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 304(1) I.P.C. and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month.2. Succinctly stated that contextual facts of the case are, that on 12.8.1998 PW-1 Ahmed Khan, complainant lodged a written report, Ex.P1 at Police Station Kotwali, Tonk alleging therein that while his grand son Kafil along with PW-5 Irfan and PW-14 Arif was on way to market, appellant Mohd. Nazim called all of them at his shop and asked Kafil (since deceased) as to where the goat has eaten his male organ, where the stitches were put and that why he was defaming him. There-upon, some altercation look place between accused Nazim and deceased Kafil. The...
Tag this Judgment!Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2 an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ687Raj
ORDER1. Counsel agree that the parties will be free to lead evidence on the question as to whether Mr. Mahesh Kumar Asnani is a workman. The Labour Court will give opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on this question and decide the reference itself. The parties further agree that they will complete the evidence within three months.2. In view of this, impugned judgment of the learned single judge as well as of the Labour Court will not operate. Appeal stands disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Saharan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4169; RLW2003(2)Raj964; 2002(3)WLN596; 2002(3)WLN596
Garg, J. 1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the order dated 13.9.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar by which he instead of forwarding the complaint for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has himself proceeded to post the matter for enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-A complaint was filed by the petitioner-complainant on 11.9.2001 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar against Radhey Shyam and Sub-Registrar, Sri Ganganagar stating inter-alia that the accused persons mentioned in the complaint have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.On that complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sri Ganganagar heard the counsel for the complainant- petitioner on 12.9.2001 and reserved the order and passed the order on...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1009; 2002(3)WLN415; 2002(3)WLN415
Garg, J.1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners with a prayer that FIR No. 135/2001 of the Police Station Jayal, Dist. Nagore under Sections 365, 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. may be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances :FIR No. 71/2001 of the Police Station Roll Dist. NAGORE FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304-A l.P.C,(i) That one Prahlad Ram lodged a report with the Police Station Roll on 30.9.2001 at 9 a.m. stating that on 29.9.2001 accused petitioner Jugal Kishore and Gopal Ram took Kheraj S/o Rarndhan Jat (his nephew) (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) to village Khiyala and at that time the accused was having new motor-cycle of Bajaj mark. Atabout 4 a.m. in the morning he received an information that the deceased had met with an accident and thereafter brother of deceased Raju Ram and some other persons reached hospital where accused petitioners were also there and accused petitioner Jugal Kishore Soni told P...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »