Rajasthan Court July 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.
Ram Rai Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1674
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction dated 21st February, 1986, whereby the Special Judge Anti Corruption Cases Jaipur convicted the accused appellant Ram Rai S/o Shri Narain Lal by caste Balai, R/o of Niwai in the offences under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(l)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1947) and sentenced him as under:Under Section 161 of IPCOne year Rigorous imprisonment.Section 5(l)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947One year Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer Rigorous imprisonment of two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The nub of the prosecution story as unfolded by PW.l Abdul Aziz is as under: That on 9th April, 1980 the complainant PW-1 Abdul Aziz submitted a complaint Ex. P/l to Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Department, Ajmer stating that the accused Ram Rai Land Records Officer...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Dinesh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ29
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2001, passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur District in Case No. 380/2001 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 336 & 504 IPC.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.1.2000, the complainant Dinesh Kumar (PW.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) in police Station Ramganj, Jaipur stating therein that on that day the accused respondents abusing him and pelting stone.3. Upon the aforesaid incident, the police registered a case (FIR No. 1/200) under Sections 336, 504 IPC and investigation started. After investigation, the police filed a challan under Sections 336 & 504 IPC before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City. The learned Magistrate framed charges against accused for the offence under Sections 336 & 504 IPC and the charges were read over and explained to the accused responden...
Ram Karan @ Ram Varan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj886
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that a case was registered under Sections 399, 402, 307, 353 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.), Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Area Act, 1986 (for short the Act of 1986'). The accused petitioners were arrested on 6.4.08, thus in view of the provisions of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Cr. P.C.) the Magistrate was authorized to detain the accused person in custody pending investigation maximum for the period of 60 days, however, in the present matter, the accused petitioners were detained beyond the statutory period, thus in view of the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr. P.C., the petitioners were to be released on bail.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners elaborately argued that under the provisions...
Nathu Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3514
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Three different stories appear in this case. The first story according to FIR declares accused Mohan Lal as the author of fatal injury received by the deceased on his head, whereas second story based on the evidence adduced at the trial, indicates that it was accused Pratap, who inflicted the fatal blow. On the other hand accused Nathu Ram has come forward with the third story by admitting that he himself gave a fatal blow when the deceased stripped Phooli naked. Let us find out the truth.2. The above named three accused are the appellants before us. They were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, who vide judgment dated June 11, 2004, while acquitting co-accused persons, convicted and sentenced them as under:Mohan Lal Under Section 302 and Pratap Chaudhary and Nathu Ram:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonmen...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kailash Yogi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3048
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of. Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of conviction and sentence against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.3.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chhipa Barod (for short 'the learned trial Court') in regular criminal case No. 41/1994, whereby the learned trial Court imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in Section 279 IPC and Rs. 1000/- has been imposed as a fine in Section 304A IPC and in case of default in payment of fine the accused respondent shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.2.1994, complainant Deendayal submitted a written report at P.S. Chhipabarod to this effect that he was doing work in his field and his field is situated near road. One jeep bearing number RJ-28/T0003 which was being driven by Kailash Yogi came with fast speed, which resulted in accident of Dhulilal s/o Heeralal Kirad and...
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Rishabh Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3083
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti through its Secretary, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 5.12.1991 passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra (for short 'the learned trial Court') in criminal misc. case No. 188/85, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') by giving him benefit of doubt.2. As per the case of the prosecution, the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Neem-ka-Thana, (in short 'the Samiti') submitted a complaint to this effect that accused purchased leaves of Tendu in the sum of Rs. 422252.75 without any licence and on the aforesaid leaves, mandi shulk amounting to Rs. 4222.53 is payable and on this amount, late fee is made as Rs. 3824.00. He further stated in the complaint that the accused has not paid the aforesaid amount and thus, by violating the Sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the Act...
Rakesh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4416; RLW2008(4)Raj3304
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Petitioner's grievance is that he is not being released by jail authorities, even after his serving the sentence of total period for which he was sentenced under Section 376 IPC in Sessions Case No. 119/01 vide judgment and order dated 17.5.02 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota. He is not being released on parole for the reason that petitioner was subjected to proceedings under Section 110/41 Cr.P.C. wherein, he was required to furnish the bail bonds which he did not furnish and therefore, the learned Executive Magistrate vide order dated 29.3.2000, sentenced the petitioner to three years imprisonment. Petitioner is denied release on completion of sentence in Sessions Case No. 119/01 on the ground that petitioner can be released after serving complete three years more sentence which was awarded in Criminal Case under Section 110/41 Cr.P.C. decided on 29.3.00 as the two sentences did not run concurrently.2. Learned Counsel for t...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4799
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.1998 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways) Ajmer (for short 'the learned trial Court') in original criminal case No. 222/1981, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent by giving him Benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 3 R/P. (U.P.) Act, 1996.2. Brief facts of the case are that one complaint was submitted by the Railway Security Force Carriage Company. Ajmer under Section 3 R.P. (U.P.) Act, 1966 before the Court stating therein that, as per the works described, accused Jagdish was on leave on 14.11.1980 at 11:30 AM. He entered in the carriage work-shop and reached at Paint shop at line No. 1. There, he after removing 5 plates of aluminum in GS 32110 entered in wagon number G.S.30656. He was taking aluminum plates and he was caught redhanded.3. A case No. 7/80 was registered against the accused re...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1034]; RLW2008(4)Raj3585
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Surendra Kumar, who was serving in the Central Reserve Police Force in its 124th Battalion as Cook. He was appointed on 1/4/1993. When he was posted at Pinjore in the State of Haryana, he was subjected to medical examination by the respondents on 28/4/2000 and was found to be suffering from Schizophrenic illness. On the same day, the medical board also examined him and opined that he was not fit to be retained in service of any kind or as a Cook. The respondents vide their letter dated 11/5/2000 served a notice upon the petitioner that since he has been declared unfit by the medical board, his services are liable to be discontinued in view of the provisions of Rule 38 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, 'Rules pf 1972') and Central Civil Service (Medical Examination) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'Rules of 1957'). He was informed that in case he wanted to be examined by the review medical board, h...
Ravi Shanker M. Vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Tech ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj202
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this petition, petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to accept his OBC Certificate which has been obtained from the State of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of recruitment under OBC Category in the State of Rajasthan. Further it is prayed that respondents may be restrained from terminating the services of petitioner on the ground that OBC status has been conferred by the Tamil Nadu Government and his community does not find place in the OBC List of State of Rajasthan. It is also prayed that the order dated 25.11.2006 (Annex. 8) and any other consequential order may be quashed with all consequential benefits.2. The case of petitioner is that in pursuance of advertisement issued by respondent University for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Nematology vide advertisement dated 31.12.2005, petitioner being eligible for appointment applied for the said post. Along with the application for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »