Rajasthan Court April 2008 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.
Ramkaran and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2738
Guman Singh, J.1. Ramkaran, Raghuveer, Sultan and Rajendra (appellants herein) were put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 2, Jhunjhunu who vide judgment dated February 8, 2006 convicted and sentenced each of the appellants as under:Under Section 148 IPCto suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for seven days.Under Section 365 IPCto suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 50/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for seven days.Under Section 302/149 IPC,to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for seven days.All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution cased is that the informant Ghasi Ram resident of village Hanutpura lodged a report on August 21, 2004 at about 4.15 A.M. at police station Baggar, District Jhunjhunu wherein he stated that about thre...
Banwari Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3256
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Since the controversy involved in all the three matters such as criminal appeal, criminal revision and leave to appeal, arise out of the same FIR number and same judgment, hence, all the above three matters are being decided by this common judgment.2. By filing instant criminal appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C, the accused appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18-1-2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kota (learned 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 45/2001, whereby it convicted as under:Accused appellant No. 1 Banwari Lal:307, IPC:10 Years Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each accused appellants shall further undergo two months' simple imprisonment.326, IPC:Ten Years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, each accused appellants shall further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.324, IPC:Rigorous Impriso...
Sandeep Agarwal (Shri) and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3381
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioners preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 23.6.2005 passed by Session Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2001 whereby learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants-petitioners and upheld the order dated 24.7.2001 passed by Collector, Jhunjhunu in Case No. 100/2001 under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955').2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 2.6.2001 an information was received at Police Station-Pilani, District: Jhunjhunu from an informer that Kerosene will be transported to Delhi from Jhunjhunu illegally and thereupon at 6.30 AM a truck was seized near Village-Narhad by the police party consisting of C.I. Nawab Khan, ASI-Narendra Singh and Head Constable-Somdev and others. On search of the tanker/truck, it was found filled with 11000 liters Kerosene, whic...
Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Baldev Raj Manoharl ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj105
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This revision petition by the defendants is directed against the order dated 5-9-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Sriganganagar Camp Raisinghnagar in Civil Suit No. 51/2003 rejecting an application moved under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act of 1985').2. Briefly put the relevant facts and aspects of the matter are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner has filed the suit aforesaid for money recovery wherein the defendant-petitioner No. 1 Oswal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. ('the Company') moved an application under Section 22 of the Act of 1985 and submitted that a reference made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') in its respect had been registered at No. 348/2002; and the defendant being such an Industrial Company in whose respect an inquiry under Section 16 of the Act of 1985 was pending and scheme for reconstruction was under consideratio...
Ram Seeds and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2645
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter) involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are being heard and decided at the admission stage, taking the facts of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 207/2005 (M/s. Sri Ram Seeds and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan) as the leading case.2. The order dated 20.10,2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'the Revisional Court' hereinafter) has been challenged in this criminal miscellaneous petition, whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 29.1.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 245(2) of the Code in a criminal case institu...
India International School and anr. Vs. Malam Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ92Raj; RLW2009(1)Raj280
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since common point is involved in all these petitions, all these petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The proceedings in these cases are pending before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act as the respondents have approached the said authority for getting various reliefs. During the pendency of these proceedings, on behalf of the petitioner Management, an application was submitted that the provisions of Payment of Wages Act is not applicable to the Institution as it is an educational institution and therefore in that view of the matter, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no Jurisdiction to decide the applications filed by the concerned applicants. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act has decided the application about applicability of the Act and preliminary point is decided against the petitioner by holding that the provisions under the Payment of Wages Act is applicable to the facts of the present ...
Ramji Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj289
Guman Singh, J.1. Ramji Lal, Shambu Lal, Ram Kishore, Ram Prasad, Lala Ram and Kanhalya Lal (appellants herein) were put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa who vide judgment dated December 6, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Ram Prasad : Under Section 302 IPC:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Ram Kishore : Under Section 326 IPC:to suffer rigorous Imprisonment for two years and six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for two months.Ramji Lal, Kanhaiya Lal, Shambhu and Lala Ram: Under Section 325 IPC:each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.Ramji Lal, Kanhaiya Lal, Shambhu and Lala Ram : Under Section 323 IPC:each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.All the sente...
Manvendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj310
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of the order dated nil (appended as Annexure-7 with the writ petition) issued by the State Government reverting the appellant from the post of Inspector of police to the post of Sub-Inspector. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated November 29,1999. Hence this appeal.2. Contextual facts depict that a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short 'CCA Rules'), was served on May 30, 1986 on the appellant while he was posted as SHO Police Station Karauli. Following five charges were framed against the appellant:vkjksi la[;k &1mDr Jh ekuosnz flag] mifujh{kd iqfyl o'kZ 1982 eas iqfyl Fkkuk lyseiqj ij Fkkuk izca/kd ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks] rc ,d vKkr vkSjr dh yk'k dq,a esa rSjus dh lwpuk izkIr gksus ij mUgksus Jh gtkjh yky lgk;d mi fujh{kd dks /kkjk & 174 tk-Qks ds vUrZxr dk;Zokgh d...
Mohammed Ayyub Khan and anr. Vs. Hameed and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN336
Manak Mohta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and Award dt. 09.11.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur, by which, the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellants was partly allowed while awarding Rs. 86,000/- as compensation plus interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing the claim application in favour of the claimant-appellants and against all the non-claimant-respondents.2. From perusal of the record, it reveals that on 10.08.1999, there was a 'Traffic Jam' on National Highway No. 8 on Ratanpur-Bichhiwara route, therefore, number of trucks including the concerned truck bearing No. HRA/0756 also remained stayed on the road. The Khalasi of the said truck Imran @ Umran was taking rest and out of general practice with the prior knowledge of the driver of the said Truck, he slept under the truck. It further reveals that later on, when the traffic jam was opened, the driver of the truck Hameed (non-claimant-respo...
Sampat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2503
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter), the first informant has challenged the order dated 15.11.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, district Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 Rajinder Kumar under Section 438 of the Code in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 123/07 P.S., Bhirani for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323 and 341/34 IPC.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Carefully gone through the order impugned dated 15.11.2007 as also the police investigation diary. I have also carefully gone through the statements of three injured namely the present petitioner Sampatram, Sunil and Anil recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code. Apart from the statements of these three witnesses, I have also gone through the statements of other witnesses who have witnessed th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »