Rajasthan Court February 2006 Judgments
NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2244
R.P. Vyas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Suman and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4187; I(2007)DMC578
ORDERB.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga, district Hanumangarh (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 481/2004, whereby the trial Court framed charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charge, the petitioners have filed the instant revision.2. The facts, in a nut shell, are that complainant Smt. Suman filed a complaint stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Vaijayant Kumar on 16.7.1997 at Paniwala, tehsil and district Abohar (Punjab). However, in her statement under Section 161 of the Code, she stated that the marriage was solemnized on 16.7.1997 at village Likhmisar according to Hindu, customs and rites with Vaijayant Kumar and her father gave the cash amount of Rs. 51,000/- a...
Tag this Judgment!Lokesh Chandra and anr. Vs. Chatra Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC692; RLW2006(3)Raj1720; 2006(3)WLC57
Manak Mohta, J.1. These two Misc. Appeals, namely, 48/1995, and 69/1995 have arisen out of single accident for which claim case Nos. 64/94 (2/93) and 72/94 (1/93) respectively were preferred by the present claimants before the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi, District Jodhpur who vide his judgment and award dated 26.9.1994 decided the claims petitions by a common judgment and awarded Rs. 40,000/- as compensation in each case. Since in these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, these appeals were being heard together to maintain uniformity and convenience of judgment and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 2.12.1992 at about 1:40 p.m. while Ruchit Kothari and his classmate Chandra Shekhar Soni were going on their cycle from the main gate of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi towards National Highway No. 15(which leads from Jaisalmer to Bikaner), at that time, a truck bearing N...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhati Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2086; 2006(3)WLC643
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Prabhati Lal, Smt. Murti Devi and Mahaveer, the appellants herein, were put to trial for having committed dowry death of Sunita before arbitrators Additional Sessions judge (Fast Track) Kishangarhbas (Alwar), who vide judgment dated June 05, 2002 convicted and sentenced he appellants as under:Under Section 304 IPCTo suffer imprisonment for life.Under Section 498A IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Prosecution version as projected during trial is as follows:Sunita (since deceased) was sister of informant Ashok Kumar (PW- 1). She was married to appellant Mahaveer three years back prior to the date of incident. Immediately after the marriage appellant Mahaveer and his parents (appellants Prabhati lal and Smt. Murti Devi) started harassing her for the demand of Motor Cycle, Fridge and gas stove. The informant c...
Tag this Judgment!Taru @ Tarachand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2083; 2006(3)WLC568
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Taru @ Tarachand, Mahaveer Prasad, Ramkaran and Smt. Meerki @ Meera, the arbitrators herein, were tried before the arbitrators Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 91/2001 (104/99). Learned Judge vide judgment dated March 6, 2002 convicted and sentenced the arbitrators as under:Tara @ Tarachand.Under Section 302 IPC.To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Mahaveer Prasad, Ramkaran and Smt, Meerki @ Meera:Under Section 323 IPC:Instead of sentencing them extended the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.2. Informant Gheesa (PW-1), who lodged written report (Ex.P-1) and arbitrator Taru are real brothers. They shared water of common well turn by turn for the purpose of watering their respective fields. On September 2, 1999 it was his turn to lift water from the well. Around 3 PM when the informant and his son Gopal (since ) were about t...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Sapre Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2124; 2006(2)WLC668
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts, same relief has been claimed, all the above writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. Admittedly, the petitioners had been appointed on the post of Coach in different games and sports on contract basis for a fixed term. Apart from claiming regularization, the petitioners have also prayed for regular pay scale for the post of Coach alleging that they have been given appointment after due selection. In view of interim order passed by this Court the petitioners are continuing on the posts in question even after expiry of period of contract.3. The respondents, in their reply, have disputed the facts as submitted by the petitioners. It has been contended that there have never been regular selections from open market and petitioners also joined the services fully knowing the terms and conditions of contract. As such, the prayers made by the petitioners cannot be accepted by this Court under writ ju...
Tag this Judgment!inder Chand Through His Legal Representatives Vs. Smt. Jethi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj251; RLW2006(3)Raj2248; 2006(4)WLC144
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Arguments heard.2. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 20.8.1971 and upheld by the first appellate court by the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1981. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on different grounds than the grounds on which the first appellate Court decreed the suit. The first appellate court also declared the share of the plaintiff as l/3rd in the suit property instead of 4/9 as declared by the trial Court.3. Brief facts of the case are that the property in dispute, situated in the city or Bikaner, was belonging to one Ganga Das and Mool Chand. Ganga Das has 2/3 share whereas Mool Chand had 1/3 share in the suit property. Ganga Das had four sons, Moti Lal, Raman Lal, Shanker Lal and Shiv Ratan. Shiv Ratan died in the year 1931 leaving behind his widow Smt. Jethi, who is the plaintiff. Moti Lal and Raman Lal separated from Ganga Das in the year 1937. Shanker Lal S/o Ganga Das and Smt. Jethi wid...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1521; 2006(2)WLC632
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The unfortunate death of Vishnu, a ten year old boy, is shrouded in mystery. The half-baked testimonies of Prosecution witness have not solved the enigma of his death. Yet, vide judgment dated 13.9.2002, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur has convicted the appellant for Vishnu's abduction and murder. For offence under Section 364 IPC the learned Trial Court has sentenced the appellant to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- and to further undergo a sentence of three months of imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 302 he has been sentenced to Life Imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and to further undergo an imprisonment of six months in default thereof.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.2000, one Kedar Singh lodged a written report at Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur wherein he stated that 'his son, Vishnu is ten years old and is studying in the second...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006FAJ166; 2006WLC(Raj)UC64
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-9-1994 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gangapur City whereby the appeal of the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 6-6-1989 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City was dismissed and the conviction of accused petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was maintained.2. Learned trial Court finding the accused petitioner guilty of offence of adulteration of food awarded punishment of one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. The said sentence was maintained by the learned Appellate Court.3. According to the prosecution, on 9-8-1983 at 3.00 PM during the day in the shop situated in Todabhim, District Hindaun, the Food Inspector surveyed the shop of the accused petitioner and took the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Sharma and ors. Vs. R.P.S.C. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1747; 2006(2)WLC682
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts same relief has been claimed, all the above writ petitions have been heard-together and are being decided by this common order.2. Petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Commission on 18.1.1997. Last date for submission of the application form was 15.3.1997. All the candidates, who had applied for the post, were allowed to appear in the written examination provisionally subject to eligibility of the candidates. After completion of the written examination and having scrutinized the application forms, candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the respondent-Commission only on the ground that they were not having requisite qualifications, as prescribed under the Rules and notified in the advertisement itself.3. There is no dispute that the required qualification for the post in question had been B.E. in a particular branch from which the appointment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »