Rajasthan Court January 2006 Judgments
Asha Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1188
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by 12 accused appellants arises out of the judgment and order dated 30.7.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, by which the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following manner:Under Section 148 IPC :To undergo 2 months' rigorous imprisonment eachUnder Section 302, in the alternative under Section 302/149 IPC :To undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50007- each, in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo two months simple imprisonmentUnder Section 326, in the alternative under Section 326/149 IPCTo undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo one month's simple imprisonmentUnder Section 325, in the alternative under Section 325/149 IPCTo undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo one month's simple imprisonmentAll t...
Tag this Judgment!Abid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1310; 2006(2)WLC340
Narendra Kumar Jain, J1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act to 15 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year R.I. by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Case, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 35/99. Being aggrieved with the same, the present appeal was preferred before this Court.3. PW 11 Rajeev Dutta, SHO, Kotwali, Jhalawar received an information on 24.5.99 at 3.25 p.m. from informer that accused Abid is selling illegal smack. The information was reduced in writing (Ex.P.I 1) and a copy of which was forwarded to S.P. Jhalawar (Ex.P.13). Vide Ex. P.I to SHO, Kotwali, Jhalawar directed Constable Ramkalyan to bring two independent witnesses of the locality of the place where search is to be made on 24.5.99 at 3.55 p.m. that nobody is willing to be a witness to the search as the entire area belongs to Muslim community. The SHO put a note on Ex.P.I below the ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1726; 2006FAJ207; RLW2006(2)Raj1136; 2006(2)WLC258
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.9.1994 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner Ishwar Lal upholding the judgment of conviction and punishment dated 14.5.1990 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City, in Cr. Case No. 506/1984 for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Herein after referred to as 'the Act of 1954').2. According to the prosecution case on 16.9.1994 Food Inspector Kewal Chand Jain PW 1 went for inspection to the shop of Ishwar Lal where the petitioner was carrying on his business of Gud, Oil, Sarso, Bura, Vanaspati, Besan and other grocery articles on retail basis. He asked for giving sample of mustard oil for payment which was being sold by the accused petitioner. However, the said accused petitioner refused to give the sample of the said mustard oil and even refused to take the notice...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Gupta and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006FAJ204
R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.5.2005 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short).2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are duly licensed by the Drug Controller, are carrying on the business of purchase and sale of Drugs and Medicines. On 17.3.2005.and 18.3.2005, an Inspection was carried out both by the Drug Inspector and by the police. While the police chalk out an formal FIR, FIR No. 66/2005, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 8/23 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Drug Inspector filed a complaint for offences under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act. The petitioner No. 2, Rakesh Gupta had challenged the FIR by filing S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 660/05. However, after a thorough investigation and during the pendency of the said petition, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1100
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 6.1.06 whereby the Sessions Judge Bharatpur, has rejected his application under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (henceforth to be referred to as the Code) for transferring his case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur to any other Court in his Division.2. The brief facts of the case are that one Hanumant Singh lodged a report at Police Station Nadabi, District Bharatpur on 31.3.2005 at 9.25 A.M. about an incident that had taken place on 30.3.2005 at his daughter-in-law's house. In the said report he had alleged that his daughter, Asha, was married to Jitendra Singh on 31.5.2001. He further claimed that although he had given sufficient dowry in accordance with his means, but but his daughter was constantly tortured by her husband and by her in-laws for lack of the dowry. They would demand that not only Rs. 1 lac should be paid to them, but also a Maruti Car should be given t...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Mohan and anr. Vs. Bhanwari Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1541; 2006(3)WLC76
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The suit was instituted by plaintiff for ejectment, mense profits and fixing of standard rent. The appellant has challenged the fixation of provisional rent, which is claimed to be on the higher side. According to the learned Counsel, in 1970 the premises was let out at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. The learned Counsel submits that the premises which was let out for Rs. 125/- in 1970 its rent has been enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-. According to the learned Counsel, this increase is disproportionate. The learned Counsel has further submitted that increase of Rs. 2000/- is only for the period starting from January, 2004. Prior to this the rent has been enhanced from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 300/-. That too again is in the higher side. The rent has been fixed in many multiplies of the original rent. Provisional rent is to be fixed in terms of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chand and ors. Vs. the Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC139; RLW2006(2)Raj1366; 2006(2)WLC355
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 7.12.2005.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30th March, 2001, a certificate was given by the Recovery Officer against which an appeal has been filed by one of the party which is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi. In that appeal an application was filed by the petitioners for impleadment since the summons were not served upon the petitioners.3. The said application was decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal stating that the final order of impleading the party shall be given at the time of final hearing of the appeal.4. On 9.11.2005, the recovery officer passed an order ex parte against which an application for re-hearing the matter was filed on 14.11.2005 but the recovery officer refused to hear the application and the same was rejected.5. Aggrieving against the aforesaid orders, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Digpal Singh and anr. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1870; 2006(2)WLC724
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Shocking facts of this case remind us the famous saying 'to be born a woman is lobe born at risk; On February 19, 1998 Laxmi Kanwar, a Rajput house wife, was subjected to indecent assault by her near relatives Lathi was inserted into her anus and she was burnt alive. She was admitted to the hospital where she died on March 1, 1998. Digpal Singh and Pawan Singh, the appellants herein, along with Ummed Kanwar @ Gajraj Kanwar and Suraj Kanwar, were charged for having committed murder of Laxmi Kanwar before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer, who vide judgment dated August 19, 2002, while acquitting co-accused Ummed Kanwar @ Gajraj Kanwar and Suraj Kanwar, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under-Under Section 302 IPC:Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 452 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. P.P. Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj168
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. By this appeal under Section 96, CPC, the defendant-appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 4-10-1999 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner, in Civil Suit No. 41/ 99, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed with cost by order dated 4-10-1999 and it was ordered that the defendant-appellant has no right to recover the amount of the disputed bill amounting to Rs. 1,58,700.64 as the said amount is not reasonably due against him. The Court also restrained the defendant-appellant from recovering the said amount and directed the defendant-appellant not to disconnect the electric supply of the plaintiff-respondent on the ground of not depositing the said amount by the plaintiff-respondent.2. In the suit filed, the plaintiff-respondent averred that the plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture of polythene bags and has taken the electric connection bearing No. 151-0036, the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kusum Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Raj5
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The parties to this appeal were married on 3.6.1996. On 24.6.1998, the appellant-wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur. The grounds for seeking dissolution of marriage were stated to be that the husband and his relatives (mot her and sister) treated her with cruelty. One aspect of the cruelty pleaded was continuous demand of dowry and non fulfillment of demand of dowry by her parents resulting in cruel treatment by her husband and members of her husband's family. The specific instances of demand of dowry were pleaded that in the year 1997, demand was made for motorcycle. Demand of buffalo was also made, which was given by her father after purchasing the same for a sum of Rs. 7700/-. She pleaded that her husband demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- inter alia on the ground that his father was buying a separate plot for him. In this connection she averred that dissatisfac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »