Rajasthan Court October 2008 Judgments
Than Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1154
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. Interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. falls for consideration of this Court in this misc. petition which arises out of a judgment dated 28.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bayana, district Bharatpur whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.8.2008 of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Weir district Bharatpur rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 167 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.2. It appears that the petitioner was arrested on 7.5.2008 in the F.I.R. No. 99/2008 of the police station Bhusawar district Bharatpur under Sections 302, 354, 328 IPC. After necessary investigation a challan was Tiled against the petitioner and another person under Sections 302, 328, 354, 201, 120-B IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Weir, on 5.8.2008, i.e. the 90th day from the date of arrest of the petitioner. The Court, however, returned the challan due to certain administrative reason...
Tag this Judgment!inderjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1848
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to count his services from the date of joining as Inspector Grad-II in Command Area Development, Chambal, Kota, i.e. from 17.12.1977. Further it is prayed that the orders dated 08.01.1992 and 15.12.1993 be modified to that extent and all consequential benefits be given to the petitioner.2. Broadly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector Grade-II in the Command Area Development Office, Kota on 30.11.1977 in the pay scale of 440-770. The petitioner had faced an interview and he was appointed against a permanent post. The petitioner joined his services on 30.11.1977.3. Thereafter, the work of the petitioner having been found to be satisfactory, his services were extended by order dated 20.06.1978 till further orders (Annexure-2). The petitioner then continued to work in C.A.D. Office, Kota upto the year 1983. T...
Tag this Judgment!Thakarse Vs. Jagdish and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj965
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. This order governs the disposal of an application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Thakarse for the cancellation of bail of the respondent No. 1 who have been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 15 July, 2008 by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant provisions of law as also relevant material available on record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Thakurse Meena has contended that the respondent No. 1 Jagdish was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on the ground that he was a bona fide purchaser whereas, the material available on record does not reveal this fact. He has further contended that it is the respondent No. 1 Jagdish who in connivance with Rampal purchased the land knowing it well that he was not a bona fide purchaser, hence, his anticipatory bail granted by the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1021
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. By the instant appeal, the accused appellants have challenged the legality of the conviction and sentences recorded against them for the offences under Sections 302 and 498A IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, vide his judgment dated 23.7.03 delivered in Sessions Case No. 6/2002. For the offence Under Section 302 IPC, all the three accused appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to further undergo six months' imprisonment, whereas under Section 498A IPC, they were sentenced to three years' S.I. alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to further undergo S.I. for two months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.11.2001 at 5.15 PM, Dr. Sushila Choudhary, S.M.O., Govt. Hospital, Sangaria informed to Mahendra Dutt, Sub Inspector; Police Station, Sangaria that one lady Smt. Kamle...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chunki Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2131
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on appeal itself finally in view of the fact that according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the only issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant insurance company can be held liable to pay penalty imposed under the Workmen's Compensation Act! And whether there can be award of interest from the date of accident?2. So far as the first issue is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already laid down that the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of penalty amount when compensation is awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There was a Division Bench judgment taking a contrary view, then the matter was referred to a larger Bench by this Bench upon which the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 768 of 2005 held that the insurance company cannot be held liable for penalty amount awarded under the provisions of the Workmen 's Compensation Act.3. In view of the above, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mehmood Vs. Himmat Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj934
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. A suit for eviction was filed by plaintiff/respondent Himmat singh alleging that the defendant/appellant Mehmood is tenant in the suit premises and he encroached upon some more portion of the property purchased by him. The suit was filed in the trial court i.e. Court of District Judge, Udaipur on 8.7.1988. The appellant denied the tenancy and pleaded that he is not the tenant of the respondent but he is tenant of Wakf Board. The respondent claimed rent for the premises as Rs. 200/- per month. As required under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950'), the trial court was required to determine the interim rent on the basis of the material placed on record by both the partfes. The trial court after hearing the arguments and after considering the plea of the appellant that the appellant is not tenant of the respondent, vide order dated 22.8.1990, determined the r...
Tag this Judgment!Ritesh Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2357
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2000 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2008 by which he rejected the appeal of the accused petitioner for grant of bail and upheld the order dated 24.9.2008 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kota in the application arising out of FIR No. 30/2008 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 302 IPC and Section 4.25 Arms Act by which bail was refused to the accused petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.9.2008, Subodh Paliwal lodged a report at P.S. Jawahar Nagar, Kota stating inter alia that on that day at about 8.30 P.M., Gagan had informed him on telephone that Vivek was beaten by accused Umang and Navneet, as a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ550
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the above five accused appellants against the judgment dt. 23.5.2002 of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar whereby he convicted all of them under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC with imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo three months R.I. All the five accused were also convicted for the offence under Section 148, IPC and sentenced to one year's R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo one month's R.I. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 7.11.2002 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur PW 2 mother of deceased Gurjant Singh filed a report Ex.P. 1 before the S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali Ganganagar that she is living at Sethia Farm opposite the Sweet Pills factory. Her husband Gulwant Singh is employed in Rajasthan Home Guard and daughter was blessed with a baby about 4-5 da...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: (2009)11VatReporter155; (2009)24VST161(Raj)
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned notice Annex.-1 dated 24.8.2008, notice Annex.-3 dated 26.8.2008, notice Annex.-4 and 5 dated 28.8.2008, notice Annex.-8 dated 29.8.2008, notice Annex.-10 dated 3.9.2008 and notice Annex.-15 dated 17.9.2008 and for setting aside the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid notices.2. According to brief facts of the case, the petitioner sent a consignment of SS circle in Truck No. R.1 01-G/3240 from Jodhpur to Chennai. On 24.8.2008, the said truck was seized by respondent No. 3 and a notice under Section 76(5)(a) of the Raj. VAT Act, 2003 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') was given to the driver of the truck asking him to take the truck to RTO Chowki Mawli and the driver was directed to produce the bill book. The petitioner immediately submitted reply to the notice.3. The case of the petitioner is that he has sent the consignment to M/s Vardan Enterprise...
Tag this Judgment!Bhiknath and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1114
C.M. Totla, J.1. Petitioner accused in Criminal Case No. 1215/06 before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, preferring this petition requests for quashing the proceedings of above criminal case.2. The short facts alleged appear to be that one Dinesh Nath married in November, 2005 committed suicide on 1.1.2006 for which proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. registered and aforewards on complaint of deceased's father, FIR No. 19/06 registered for offences of Section 306 IPC against Dinesh Nath's in laws. On conclusion of investigation, negative report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted. After hearing the complainant respondent No. 2, learned Magistrate, vide order dated 10.8.06 taking cognizance for offence under Section 306 IPC registered case against the petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and grand father-in-law of deceased.3. The revision challenging the order of cognizance being No. 1042/06 was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »