Rajasthan Court March 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Brijendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR388]; RLW2006(2)Raj1621; 2006(3)WLC345
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has challenged the judgment dated 13.8.1996, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the State to give emergent temporary appointment to the Respondent on the post of Revenue Inspector in the Municipality.2. The brief facts of the case are that according to the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Rules of 1963', for short) the post of Revenue Inspector is a cadre post. Initially, in 1984, the Department of Local Bodies and Self-Government had advertised about 2000 vacancies for different posts, including the post of Revenue Inspector. However, after receiving the applications, the Department did not fill up the vacancies. Therefore, some of the applicants challenged the omission on the part of the Department in not filling up the vacancies by filing writ petitions before this Court, Eventually, in the case of Ratan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1990 (1) RLR 512 vide jud...
Buddhi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1950; 2006(3)WLC217
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since all these matters arise out of the same occurrence we proceed to decide them by a common order.2. The appellants, fifteen in number, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar in Sessions case No. 15/1996. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated May 15, 2000 convicted and sentenced them as under:Buddhi, Abdul Rahim and Hamid: Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Shakoor and Gafoor:Under Section 304 Part 1/34 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Himmat:Under Section 326 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Buddhi, Roozdar, Hurmat, Hamid, Hajar Khan, Sapat, Hnif, Majid, Rashid and Ashraf:Under Section 326/149 IPC:...
Harka Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2293
R.P. Vyas, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.7.2002, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby accused-appellant Harkaram has been sentenced under Section 307, IPC, to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 year's rigorous imprisonment; under Section 324, IPC, 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 3 months' rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 498-A, IPC, 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It has also been ordered by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur that under Section 357, Cr.P.C, out of the amount of fine imposed on the accused Harkaram, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- may be paid to Smt. Munki as compen...
Hazi Abadullah and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC337
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These three Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) involve common question of law and facts and arise between the same parties, therefore, with the consent of Counsel for the parties, they are heard together and decided by this order.2. By the instant Criminal Misc. Petitions, the petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint No. 153/2004 qua them on the ground that the complaint does not specifically contain the averment that at the time the offence was committed, the petitioner were in-charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company as envisaged under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter).3. I have carefully perused the complaint filed by Non-petitioner No. 2. It has nowhere been specifically averred in the complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the accused petitioners were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of t...
Munna @ Radhakrishan and ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Surana and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1596; 2006(3)WLC223
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff (Padmawati) for rent and eviction against the defendant (Ram Chandra) on 12.12.67 on 5.9.68, defendant Ram Chandra filed written statement and denied the allegation of plaintiff and stated that the defendant is owner of the property in question. Since Ram Chandra defendant died on 12.7.73, his legal representatives were taken on record on 16.1.75.2. The suit was dismissed in default on 11.7.79 and same was restored on 29.7.80 and after restoration the suit was transferred to AMJM No. 3, Jaipur City on 29.4.81. Again the case was transferred to AMJM No. 7, Jaipur City from AMJM No. 3, Jaipur City on 20.12.82. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Smt. Padmawati also died on 21.12.81 and her legal representatives were taken on record on 19.3.82.3. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and notices were issued to the defendant on 20.4.82 and after service ex parte proceedings w...
Ramji Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1956
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Smt. Kesanti was axed to death in the morning of July 18, 2000 while she was residing with her husband (appellant). Learned Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City tried the appellant and convicted and sentenced him Under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation.2. It is the prosecution case that on July 18, 2000 at 11.30 AM informant Darbab Singh (PW. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at the Police Station Gangapur City to the effect that on the said day around 7 Am one Lakhan Singh came to inform his wife (who was Sarpanch at the relevant time) that Ramji Lal(appellant) has killed his wife Kesanti. Since Sarpanch was not present in the house. Darab Singh and Lakhan Singh rushed to the house of Ramji Lalwhere they found Kesanti lying dead having injuries on the neck whereas Ramji Lal was filed down by him family members. On that report a case Under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation co...
Raghuveer Singh Vs. Shiv Kumar Swami and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2266; 2006(4)WLC210
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In newspaper 'Lok Sammat' published from Sri Ganganagar dated 24.2.2001, the following Headline was published.2. Under the detailed report dated 24.2.2001, it was stated firstly that addressing hundreds of workers assembled in front of Collectorate, Sriganganagar, the leaders of communist Party levelled sharp allegations against judiciary. Incriminating statements were attributed to Het Ram Beniwal, Navrang Choudhary, Bhuramal Swami, Advocate, Hardeep Singh and Sheopat Singh. Following statements were attributed to the respective speakers:3. The petitioner Raghuveer Singh considering that aforesaid statement reported in 'Lok Sammat' scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court and tended to scandalize the Court and tended to lower the authority of the Court by creating apprehension in the minds of people regarding integrity, ability and fairness of the Court in administering the laws and justice as well as affecting fair trial of a pending casein the courts bel...
Phool Chand and ors. Vs. Mohanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC578
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. It is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District ('Tribunal') in h MACT Case No. 342/93 vide award date, 27.11.1998.2. Claimants are parents of deceased daughter Kumari Munni aged 5 years, who died in an accident on 15.5.1993. The Tribunal after taking note of facts placed on record, awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 73,000 with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of claim petition till actual payment.3. Counsel for claimants urged that even where the deceased is considered to be non-earning member in the family, his notional income has been considered at Rs. 15,000 per annum and multiplier of 15 is adopted as per Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'), which ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal, but without taking into consideration material on record, awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 70,000 towards loss of financial dependency and Rs. 3,000 towards medical expenses, to the c...
Shyam Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1626; 2006(3)WLC721
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In these two appeals, which arise out of the same occurrence, the judgment dated October 20, 2000 of the learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur is under challenge whereby the appellants, five in number, were convicted and sentenced as under: -Shyam Lal, Ramavtar and Jagdish:Under Section 302 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days,Bhagchand and Ramjilal:Under Section 302/120B IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrentl...
Durga Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1659; 2006WLC(Raj)UC552
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its judgment dated 5.2.2002 in Sessions Case No. 5/2002 (56/2001), convicted and sentenced, both, accused-appellants Naveen Kumar and Smt. Durga Devi, under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') to seven 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 498A IPC to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the same, the accused-appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court.2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that PW-6 Govind Ram, the father of deceased. Maya, lodged a typed report (Exhibit P-5), to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Brahmpuri, Jaipur, wherein it was alleged that in the m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »