Rajasthan Court June 2005 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ravishankar Srivastava
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4216; RLW2005(4)Raj2304
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has filed these two applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of order granting bail to the accused non-applicants by Mr. R.S. Rathore, RHJS, Special Judge, Sessions Court (prevention of Corruption Act) Jaipur, (for short 'Special Judge'), in FIR No. 109/2004 of Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. The Special Judge has granted bail to accused-non-applicant R.S. Srivastava (hereinafter referred as 'an accused') vide order dated 10th August 2004 on an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. whereas the another accused-non-applicant Ajay Data (hereinafter referred as 'Co-accused') has been allowed bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 11.8.2004. Both the applications under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. arise from FIR No. 109/2004 of Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and both the orders have been passed in the same FIR by the same Judge, therefore, both these applications are disposed of a common order.2. The facts in brief are th...
Tag this Judgment!Desh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC503; RLW2005(3)Raj2182; 2005(4)WLC625
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal stems from the judgment dated August 2, 2004 whereby dying declaration of Smt. Yashwanti, (now deceased) who sustained hundred percent burn injuries, was accepted by learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri in convicting and sentencing the appellant (father in law of Yashwanti) under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution story is woven like this:-On June 18, 2002 Smt. Yashwanti of village Bhaloth PS Buhana having serious burn injuries on her body was admitted that in Emergency ward of General Hospital Narnol. Zulfikar Ali, SHO Police Station Singhana recorded parcha bayan (Exhibit P-18) of Smt. Yashwanti at 8:40 PM. In the parcha bayan Yashwanti stated that four years ago she got married with Surat Singh who was serving in the Army. She gave birth to Sachin, whose age was three years. Her father in law (appellant) and mother in law used to ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj46; 2005(4)WLC370
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal impugns the judgment dated October 28, 2002 of the. learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City rendered in Sessions Case No. 63/2001 (27/99) whereby the six appellants (herein after to be referred as 'accused'), who are the members of one family, have been convicted and sentenced as under:(1) Jagan Lal:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 447 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 326/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 323/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 3/25 Arms Act:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer one month...
Tag this Judgment!LR's of Ramdev Kajaria Vs. Vijay Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-04-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2288; 2005(4)WLC100
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The appellants, by this appeal, seek to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellant Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction, and thereby setting aside the judgment of the learned trial Court.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction on two grounds viz. default in payment of rent for the period 1.8.1987 to 30.6.1988 i.e. 11 months, and the second being the defendant having caused substantial damage to the properly. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is originally resident of Bhinasar, and lives in Calcutta, and that he had refused to remit the rent by money order, and therefore, as and when the plaintiff used to come, he receives the rent, and it is in this process that at the time of filing of suit, the amount for this period was due. Thus, the appellant has not committed any default. The allegation of causing substantial damage was also denied. In trial the plaintiff did not appear in the witness box, and examined p....
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Sankhla Vs. Lakshmi Pareva
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC365; RLW2005(4)Raj2277
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, is directed by the appellant husband against the judgment and decree, dated 6.2.2003, of the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur, in Petition No. 105/2001.2. The respondent wife, on 30.3.2001, filed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur, for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant husband. The respondent wife prayed for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds, cruelty and desertion.3. The appellant husband contested the divorce petition by filing a detailed reply thereto on 28.7.2001.4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court, on 22.2.2002 framed three issues for trial in the petition. In support of their cases, both the parties examined themselves. They did not produce any other oral evidence.5. The learned Family Court, under the impugned judgment and decree, dated 6.2.2003, allowed the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Motu Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj300
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The main issue involved in this petition is with regard to the depiction of women in an undignified manner by the media and the television channels. The Union of India through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Director General of Doordarshan and Registrar of Newspapers were also directed to submit affidavit of the concerned authorities indicating as to how the menace is being controlled, and eradicated.2. Vide order dated 28-9-2004 this Court has further directed the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan to give concrete suggestions to curb the menace of depicting women in indecent manner in newspapers, magazines, advertisements, television programmes, posters and music videos. The Monitoring Committee was also directed to submits it report in regard to the obscenity shown in the hoardings, advertisements and on television.3. The final report of the Committee constituted by this Court on prevention of representation of women in an undignified manner ...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Moto Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2741; 2005(1)WLC116
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The main issue involved in this petition is with regard to the depiction of women in an undignified manner by the media and the television channels. The Union of India through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Director General of Doordarshan and Registrar of Newspapers were also directed to submit affidavit of the concerned authorities indicating as to how the menace is being controlled; and eradicated.2. Vide order dated 28.9.2004 this Court has further directed the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan to give concrete suggestions to curb the menace of depicting women in indecent manner in newspapers, magazines, advertisements, television programmes, posters and music videos. The Monitoring Committee was also directed to submits its report in regard to the obscenity shown in the hoardings, advertisements and on television.3. The final report of the Committee constituted by this Court on prevention of representation of women in an undignified manner...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Kabra (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2850; 2005(4)WLC660
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties.2. The present public interest litigation is with regard to X- ray clinics, their functioning and safety measures. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the Central Government as well as State Government to issue direction to all the X-ray clinics to comply with the provisions of Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.3. We like to answer the issues raised by the petitioner in the following manner:1. It is expected from the respondents to enforce the provisions of Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules made thereunder in true and letter spirit. 2. The respondents shall also inspect the X-ray clinics periodically whether they possessed the valid license to conduct the X-ray or not under the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 and having adequate safety measures and infrastructure as per the rules or not.3. It will also be ...
Tag this Judgment!Shobha Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj228; 2006(1)WLC133
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated March 15, 2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi District Kota rendered in Sessions Case No. 49/1999, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:Shri Ram:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.Shobha Ram:Under Section 302/34 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.2. On February 16, 1999 at 5.30 PM informant Mohan Lal handed over a written report to the SHO Police station Chechat at Camp Alod. It was stated in the report that Shri Ram and Shobha Ram (appellants) had crushed the head of Trilok Chand (since deceased) as a result of which he died on the spot. A case under Sections 302, 341 and 34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due c...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal @ Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj196; 2005(4)WLC179
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The appellant was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Baran (Head Quarter Chhabra) District Baran in Sessions Case No. 118/2003 Learned Judge vide judgment dated October 22, 2003 convicted the appellant Ram Dayal @ Dayal under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.2. In nutshell the prosecution story is that on receiving the information through a postman when the informant Manju Bai (Pw.1) reached at the place of incident she saw her husband Prabhu Lal (since deceased) lying in an injured condition. Prabhu Lal allegedly told the informant that he was given beating with stick by Dayal (appellant). Manju Bai submitted a written report at Police Station Atru on September 13, 2002 on the basis of which a case under Sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After the death of Pra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »