Rajasthan Court May 2005 Judgments
Smt. Prabhati Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3352; RLW2005(4)Raj2213; 2005(4)WLC236
V.K. Bali, J.1. Sumitra who had hardly reached the age of 21 years and was recently blessed with a daughter is said to have been set ablaze by her mother-in-law Prabhati, appellant herein. As per the prosecution version, Sumitra was done to death on 4-4-2003 at 8 or 8.30 in the morning. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Phool Chand, father of the deceased on 7-4-2003 at 4.30 p.m. It is on the basis of written report made by him that formal FIR came to be entered and registered copy Against Order of Dharam Chand Jain, RHJS, Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar, D/- 25-9-2003.whereof and special report was sent to the concerned Magistrate on 8-4-2003 at 10.30 a.m. Phool Chand, narrated events leading to death of his daughter Sumitra in the written report which, when translated into English, would read as follows :'It is humbly prayed that the daughter of the complainant was married according to Hindu rituals on 6-12-2001 to Satyapal son of Sayarmal resident of Sangarwa at Villa...
Tag this Judgment!Vidhi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2262
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This is second bail application Under Sections 439 Cr.P.C. The first bail application was dismissed vide order dated 10th May, 2004 in S.B. Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 5603/03.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in judicial custody since June, 2003 and there is no satisfactory progress in the trial. He further submits that there is no recovery of any statute or idol in the present case from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail.3. The application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. He submits that petitioner was closely associated with main/co-accused namely Vaman Narain Ghiya against whom number of cases of identical offences are pending and who used to purchase the idols, statutes, monuments from accused-persons for smuggling purpose. Apart from merits of the case and allegation against the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that as many as 27 cr...
Tag this Judgment!Anita Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2350
S.K. Keshote, J.1. These two letter petitions are before the court for final disposal.2. Petitioners, namely, Anita Kumari (In Writ Petition No. 7306/04) and Ishwar Jakhar & Pradeep Mayla (In Writ Petition No. 7308/04), made the grievance in the matter that prescribing of minimum age of 24 years for appointment on the post 01 Lecturer in school education, is not justified. The petitioners sent the letters to the court and the same are treated as writ petitions on 11.10.2004. Notices were issued to the respondents, returnable on 8.11.2004.3. On 3.12.2004 Shri J.K. Agarwal, Additional Government Advocate, put appearance and on his request time was granted to file reply and the matters were adjourned to 14.1.2005. The matters came up for hearing in the court on 17.1.2005. Though more than one month and fourteen days time was available to the respondent State but reply to the writ petitions was not filed.4. On 7.1.2005 again the learned Additional Government Advocate made a request for gra...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2250; 2005(3)WLC697
V.K. Bali, J1. Appellants Ramesh Chandra and Radhey Shyam brothers faced trial for intentionally causing death of Mohan Lal alongwith Satya Narain the third appellant herein. The trial culminated into order of conviction and sentence dated 28.10.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra, Distt. Baran. The appellants named above, have been found guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The occurrence leading to death of Mohan Lal as per prosecution case had taken place at 10-11 a.m. on 05.04.1993. The first information report with regard to incident came to be lodged on the basis of a written report made by Badri Lal Dhakar, P.W. 1 on the same day at 02.00 p.m. The FIR was entered into and registered by the SHO. Police Station, Atru. Badri Lal in the written report made by him on th...
Tag this Judgment!F.C.i. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR509]; RLW2005(4)Raj2852; 2005(4)WLC595
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The writ petition is disposed of finally as prayed by the counsel for the parties.2. Respondent No. 3, the concerned workman, had raised an industrial dispute in regard to alleged termination of his services. After the conciliation proceedings having been failed, respondent No. 1 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide notification dated 1.6.1991. The reference to the Tribunal was made in the following words:'Whether the action of the management of F.C.I. at its Regional Office, Jaipur and that at its depot Sribijaynagar in not inducting Shri Pema Ram as Casual Labour in FCI Depot, Sribijay Nagar on the ground of being over aged is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?'3. Subsequently, by another notification dated 24.7.2002 the reference, so made, has been amended in the following manner:'Whether the action of the management of FCI at Regional Office, Jaipur and that at its depot Sribij...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj58; 2005(3)WLC39
Jitendra Goyal, J.1. The appellant Sanjay has been charged, convicted and sentenced as under:-Under Section 302 IPC :-Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine six months imprisonment.Under Section 394 IPC :-'Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC :-Two years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the case of prosecution that deceased Harjeet Singh who was the driver on the truck No. DL 1GB-0688 [owner by his uncle Ashok Kumar (PW20)] departed on 7.8.1998 from Yamuna Nagar for Indore along with cleaner Sanjay Kumar. The truck was loaded with the ply wood.3. On the way they had a halt at Ladwa. They moved for Indore on the next day and met with an accident on 9.8.1998 at Kalanaur. PW20 Ashok Kumar having information of the accident sent Baldev Raj (PW1) (brother of the deceased) and one mechanic to Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Pareshar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj271; RLW2005(4)Raj2239; 2005(3)WLC468
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, the appellant petitioner has sought the relief of setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.99 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 2159/1997 and allowing the writ petition as prayed therein.2. The facts, relevant and necessary for decision of the instant Special Appeal, in succinct, are that the appellant purchased an old house from one Smt. Shanti Kumari Lodha vide registered sale deed dated 15.5.87. The said property is situated at Moti Chowk, Jodhpur. Smt. Shanti Kumari acquired ownership and possession of the said property by a judgment and decree dated 6.6.72 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Suit No. 867/1934. After purchase of said property, the appellant filed an application under Section 170(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act' hereinafter) before the respondent Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur seeking permissio...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR172]
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 8.4.2003 (Annexure-13) may kindly be quashed and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be paid the pension and modified gratuity and leave salary by taking into consideration the full span of service from the date of his appointment with appropriate rate of interest.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Salesman vide order dated 9.8.1968 (Annexure-1) under the respondent No. 2.3. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor vide order dated 20.2.1986 (Annexure-1-A).It has also been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.2.1987 (Annexure-2). However, after departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerted vide order dated 22.5.1990 (Annexure-3). Thus, the suspension of the petitioner was nonest.It has also been averred in the writ petition that State Government issued a...
Tag this Judgment!Harvest Gold Food (India) Private Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Raj)231; [2006]282ITR83(Raj); RLW2005(3)Raj1898; 2005(4)WLC21
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner M/s. Harvest Gold Foods (India) Private Limited is a private limited company and is engaged in the trade and business of manufacture of Bread in its factory situated at village Chhapar post Jhiwana Tapukara Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Rajasthan).2. The petitioner company is manufacturing the bread in the name and style 'Harvest Gold' and which is sold inside and outside the State of Rajasthan including capital city of Delhi. Earlier the name of petitioner company was Florida Foods (India) Private Limited and subsequently changed to its present name with effect from 13.9.1975.3. The petitioner company became a deemed public company w.e.f. 1.7.1998 and thereafter became private limited company pursuant to Section 43-A(2A) of the Companies Act 1956.4. The controversy arose when the respondents conducted search and seizure on 8.1.2004 at the residence of petitioners and their commercial establishments at New Delhi and Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Pareek Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4307; RLW2005(4)Raj2420; 2005(4)WLC142
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 6.4.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 05/2005 arising out of FIR No. 116/2004, Police Station, Chitawa whereby the Trial Court framed the charges against non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC instead 498-A and 304-B IPC. Aggrieved by order impugned, whereby the Trial Court declined to frame the Charge for the offence under Section 304B IPC, the petitioner- complainant has filed the instant revision petition.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the order impugned and challan papers.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 12.10.2004, the petitioner- complainant lodged a first informa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »