Skip to content

Rajasthan Court July 2007 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.

Jul 03 2007

Sugna (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Jul-03-2007

Reported in: 2007(3)WLN352

H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus to quash and set aside the order impugned dt. 20.01.2006 (Annex.7) and a direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganvadi Worker in pursuance of the Resolution No. 33 dt. 17.01.2006 (Annex. 6) passed in Gram Sabha meeting at village Bhag Talai and also seeks a direction to provide training to the petitioner for the post of Anganvadi Worker.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Sakroda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur and having educational qualification of Senior Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan in the year 2000 vide Annex.3, applied for the post of Anganvadi worker as the respondents invited applications for appointment on the post of Anganwadi work...


Jul 02 2007

Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Jul-02-2007

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4419; RLW2007(4)Raj172

R.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 8-3-2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Tonk whereby the trial Court has convicted the accused appellant for offences under Sections 452, 323 and 302 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC for short). The appellant has been sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and has been fined Rs. 200/- and in default thereof to further undergo seven days of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 452, I. P. C, for the offence under Section 323, I. P. C, he has been sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment . and has been fined Rs. 100/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of five days in default thereof; for offence under Section 302 the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of six months in default thereof. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant is before us.2. According to the prosecutio...


Jul 02 2007

Prema Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Jul-02-2007

Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj176

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The gravamen of the charge put against the appellant Prefna was that he committed rape on the prosecutrix (name withheld by us), a girl of eleven years of age. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated October 20, 2001 found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him thus:Under Section 376 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and Fine of Rs. 50000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for two years.Under Section 450 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 20000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one year.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is founded on the Parcha Bayan of the prosecutrix recorded by the SHO Police Station Todarai Singh on August 16, 2000 wherein she stated that on the said day around 12 in the Noon while she was alone in her house, the appellant entered the house and committed rape on her. Charges under Sections 376 and 450 IPC Were framed again...


Jul 02 2007

Dharam Pal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Jul-02-2007

Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj179

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In short the prosecution story is that on the fateful night the deceased and other members of the complainant party armed with deadly weapons visited the house of accused party. Free fight ensued and both the parties sustained injuries on the vital parts of the bodies. Accused Dharam Pal and Ram Niwas (appellants herein) were charge sheeted for having committed murder of Balbeer. At the trial another accused Mahipal (third appellant) was also implicated. Learned Trial Judge found three appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them vide judgment dated July 26, 2001 as under:Dharam Pal:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and Tine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 307/34 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Ram Niwas and Mahipal:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Both to suffer imprisonment ...


Jul 02 2007

Shrawan Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Jul-02-2007

Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj183

R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Convicted under the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act ('NDPS', for short), sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, having served six years of imprisonment, the petitioner was hoping that he would be granted the first regular parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release of Parole) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules', for short). However, vide order dated 8.7.2004 the Advisory Committee under the Rules rejected the petitioner's case for first regular parole. Hence, this petition before this court.2. Mr. Sumer Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that under Rule 9 of the Rules once a convicted prisoner has completed one-fourth of his sentence and in case his conduct is satisfactory in the jail, the prisoner becomes entitled to the first parole of 20 days. According to him, the petitioner has already served more than one-fourth of his sentence, yet he has not been granted the benefit of first parole. Moreover, he has been denied t...


Jul 02 2007

Group Capt. M.S. Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Jul-02-2007

Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj636

Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the instant writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge premature retirement order dated 19.5.1998 (Anx. 3) and order dated 21.5.1998 (Anx.4) whereby the petitioner was permitted to proceed on premature retirement by 15.6.1998 and order releasing retirement dues on clearance of the documents/particulars was also passed. The petitioner has further prayed that the order of premature voluntary retirement dated 19.5.1998 be treated as cancelled and the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner in service till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.5.2000.2. The facts, in brief, of the case, as per the petitioner are that after promotion to the rank of Colonel in AMC he was seconded to IAF in the rank of Group Captain and while working, as Group Captain the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed proforma on 26.8.1997 for premature retirement from service to the Air Force Authorities, to be made effective from 1.4.1998 on the ground of superse...


Jul 02 2007

Shyam Lal Vs. the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Jul-02-2007

Reported in: 2008(2)WLN459

Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to give him salary in the regular pay scale on the basis of principle of 'equal pay for equal work' with the further relief of regularization of his services including benefit of bonus, leave, HRA etc.2. Facts, in brief of the case, as per the petitioner, are that he was initially appointed on daily wages as Chowkidar in November, 1988. His services were initially terminated on 10.01.1991 and on reference the said termination was declared illegal by the Labour Court vide its Award dt. 16.01.1994 with the direction to reinstate him in service, continuity of service and payment of back wages. The said Award was challenged by the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation (in short 'the respondent Corporation') in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1959/1995 but without success and the compliance order was passed on 02.02.1999. Since then, the petitioner is continuously was working ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial