Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003(97)FLR86]; RLW2004(2)Raj830; 2003(4)WLC305
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing and setting-aside the order dated 30-1-2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria, district Hanumangarh (for short, 'the trial Court hereinafter'), whereby the trial court, on a private complaint by non-petitioner No. 2 Akshay Kumar, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioners. The trial Court further directed amalgation of complaint case No. 97/2002 with criminal case No. 536/2002 registered on police challan papers against co-accused Vasu Deo, Bhagirath, Ram Chandra, Sunder Ram and Prem Chand arising out of FIR No. 34/2002.2. Briefly stated, the facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the instant revision petition, are that non-petitioner No. 2 Akshay Kumar lodged an FIR No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj934; 2003(4)WLC172
Mathur, J.1. The learned Single Judge has referred following question for adjudication :-'Whether the right of the accused to move an application under Section 13 Sub-section (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is extinguished if he docs not submit an application for sending one of the sample to Central Food Laboratory, for analysis, within the period of ten days from that of receiving a copy of the receipt of the Public Analyst ?'2. The view that an application for sending one of the samples to the Central Food Laboratory filed under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') beyond the period of ten days from the date of the receipt of the copy to the public Analyst taken by the learned Single Judge of this court in Vijay Raj v. State of Rajasthan (1), relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Tulsi Ram v. State of M.P. (2), is in conflict with the view taken in Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan (3), relying on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj914; 2003(3)WLC730
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 4.9.1999 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 22.5.1998 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondents by which in an enquiry under Regulation 6 of the Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1962') after holding the petitioner guilty of supervisory negligence, punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner and the appellate order dated 6.8.1999 (Annex. 5) passed by the Appellate Authority respondent No. 1 Secretary by which the appeal of the petitioner against the order Annex. 3 dated 22.5.1998 was dismissed, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-Initially, an enquiry under Regulation 7(1) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003]117CompCas306(Raj); [2004]49SCL588(Raj)
S. K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This company petition is filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956').3. It is submitted that the respondent had purchased cotton bales on various dates and admittedly a sum of Rs. 19,48,911.43 is due to payable as on February 28, 2003, to the petitioner. It is the grievance that the respondent-company without any good or valid reason, is delaying the payment of the bills. The last payment was made on October 21, 2000, by cheque No. 377016 drawn in favour of the petitioner, on the State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi, but the same has been dishonoured. Notice under Section 434 of the Act, 1956, was given which is placed on record as annexure 3, but it was not attended. Thus, this petition.4. From the document annexure 1, the ledger for the period from April 1, 2000, to March 23, 2002, 1 find that this sale of the cotton bales was there earlier to April 1, 2000. From this ledge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(2005)BC186; [2004]118CompCas602(Raj); [2004]49SCL543(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This application is filed under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule No. 9 of Company (Court) Rules, 1959 and prayer has been made for recall/revocation of winding-up order dated 16-3-2000 of this Court in S.B. Company Petition No. 48/1999. This order is there on record as Annexure-1. Under this order, the Court has, on the recommendation of the B.I.F.R., ordered for winding up of Shri Shiva Spinners Limited.2. The applicants, as admitted by them in para No. 6 of this application, are two out of three promoters of the company (in liquidation) and also its Directors. It is the order passed against the company and they are being the promoters and the Directors thereof could have challenged the same by filing the appeal. Undisputedly the appeal is not filed. Though, this order was appealable. The order was made on 16-3-2000. It would have been published in the newspapers also but this application is filed on 19-4-2003. Otherwise also if what is sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003(3)WLN167
D.N. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for non-petitioner No 2, Smt. Sunita and learned Public Prosecutor.2. The instant transfer petition has been preferred requesting that Criminal Case No. 366/2001 arising out of FIR No. 478/2000 of Police Station, Pratapgarh under Sections 498A & 406, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan be transferred to Alwar/Jaipur or any other place near to Delhi in the State of Rajasthan.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that looking to the convenience of the parties as narrated in Ground B of the petition, the case may be transferred from Pratapgarh. It was argued that no proper legal assistance is available to the accused-petitioners on that place as the case relates to the daughter of an advocate practicing at Partapgarh. It was further argued that looking to the grounds mentioned i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj840; 2003(4)WLC252
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 9.5.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 30.3.2002 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director Research, Directorate of Research, Rajasthan Agricultural University) by which the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 31.3.2002 with the expiry of project the quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-i) That on the recommendations of Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed on the post of skilled helper on adhoc basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 900/- through order dtd. 15.11.90 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner) under the Scheme named as 'Promotion of Research and Development on Hybrid in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(1)Raj336
Bansal, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated February 28, 1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City in Sessions Case No. 356/92 and Sessions Case No. 12/93 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:Sheesh Ram & Battu eachu/S. 148 IPCRigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days simple imprisonment.u/S. 302 and u/S. 307 IPCImprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment.Rameshwaru/S. 148 IPCRigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days' simple imprisonment.u/S. 302/149 and 307 IPCImprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment.Radheyu/S. 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2003(3)WLN158
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1.This second application for bail has been moved by Arjun Singh in the following circumstances:The anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner was allowed by this Court on 20.1.2003. After investigation, when the challan was filed in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sri Karanpur, the petitioner applied for regular bail but the same was dismissed by the said Court. However, Arjun Singh who was present in the Court, was not taken into custody. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 438 of the CrPC which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur on 28.3.2003. In these circumstances, this petition under Section 438 of the CrPC has been moved again to this Court.2. After considering the matter in detail, I find that unfortunately, both the lower Courts have acted in mindless fashion. There was no occasion to disallow the bail prayer which was made by the accused-person. There was no such condition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005ACJ114; RLW2004(2)Raj738; 2003(4)WLC169
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 18.4.1996 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 2.2.1996 (annex.15) passed by the respondent No. 3 Commandant (Police) First R.A.C. Mandore Road, Jodhpur by which the petitioner was held guilty of driving the Jeep in question negligently and rashly and since Rs. 18,900/- were paid by the respondents to injured Chiman Singh in motor accident claims, therefore, it was ordered that the said amount be got recovered and realized from the pay of the petitioner and furthermore, a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner was Constable Driver in the employment of the respondents and on 23.5.1987, he was dri...
Tag this Judgment!