Rajasthan Court April 2009 Judgments
Karaj Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2424
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment and order 21st February, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bundi in Sessions Case No. 18/2005 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:1. Sukhraj Singh,2. Jagjeet Singh, and3. ParmeshwarUnder Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ofRs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine offurther undergo two months S.I.Under Section 307/149 IPC Four years S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-,in default of payment of fine to further undergoone month S.I.Under Section 323/149 IPC To pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of paymentof fine to undergo 15 days S.I.Under Section 147 IPC One month S.I.Under Section 148 IPC Two months S.I.4. Karaj Singh and5. Balijinder SinghUnder Section 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ofRs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine tofurther under ...
Tag this Judgment!Adam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3335
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J. 1. As these three revision petitions arise out of the same First Information Report, having same sets of facts and grounds of challenge, they are being decided by a common order.2. Application for grant of bail was filed by these juvenile petitioners in F.I.R., No. 62/09 registered at Police Station Kishanganj, Ajmer for the offence under Section 376 IPC. All the three petitioners have been named in the report and there are specific allegations against each of them. The allegations levelled in the report read as under:eqs eqLrkd cqykdj iSny lsUV LVhQu Ldwy ds ikl taxy es ikuh dh Vadh ds ikl ys x;k o eqs /kedk dj ogka tcjnLrh esjs lkFk cqjk dke fd;k eS fpYykus yxh rks esjs eqag ij gkFk j[k fn;k mlds ckn djhc 11 cts fnu eqLrkd eqs LVhQu Ldwy ds ikl ,d dejs esa ys x;k ogka lkxj uke ds yM+ds ds edku ij esjs lkFk eqLrkd ds vykok pkj yM+ds vkSj Fks tks vkil esa ds ml uke lkxj] vkne] rktw o ,d yM+dk vkSj Fkk uke Hkwy xbZ us esjs lkFk nks fnu rd fnu esa nks nks ckj x...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN353
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dt. 22.09.1998 by which the District Supply Officer, Ajmer has cancelled his license as fair price shop dealer on allegations contained in show cause notice dt. 22.06.1998.3. Petitioner filed appeal under Clause 22 of Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, (for short 'Order of 1976') which the District Collector, Ajmer dismissed vide order dt. 05.03.1999. He thereafter filed revision petition before the Additional Food Commissioner, which was dismissed by order dt. 11.8.2000. Both the orders are under challenged.4. Apart from raising arguments about correctness of findings recorded by DSO on the charges contained in show cause notice as confirmed by Appellate and Revisional Authority, Shri Suresh Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised one significant argument that when the inspection of th...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN479
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Board of Revenue dt. 20.06.2000 by which judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dt. 23.04.1992 was set-aside and that of Sub Divisional Magistrate Bayana dt. 09.07.1990 was restored. Petitioner has also challenged the judgment of S.D.M. Dated 09.07.1990.2. The factual matrix of the case is that Tehsildar Roopwas initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act of 1955') in the Court of learned Additional City Magistrate, Bayana in the year 1976. Learned ACM rejected the application vide order dt. 05.02.1977. When petitioner came to know about the same on enquiry he learnt that in the revenue record, he was shown as 'Shikmi Kashtkar' in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 34 measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas situated at Village Mamtoli, Police Station Roopwas, Tehsil and Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Deen Dayal Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj122
Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.1. This is a defendant's first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against the judgment and decree dated 7/7/1994 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 252/1993 by which the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.2. The plaintiff Sanjeev Kumar had filed a suit for possession, declaration, injunction, recovery of mesne profits and other items with the averments that property bearing AMC No. 28/805 situated at Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer was owned and possessed by Shri Dayaram who died issue-less in the year 1957 and after the death of Dayaram his wife Jai Devi inherited his property who also expired issue-less in the month of May, 1970, therefore Chameli Devi, sister-inlaw (Bhabhi) inherited the said property in accordance to Hindu Succession Act being the nearest surviving member after the death of Smt. Jai Devi. It was further the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Chameli Devi took in adoption to the plaintiff Sanjee...
Tag this Judgment!Som Nath Vig Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2506
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was appointed on 21.4.1981 as Pharmacist with the respondent Sri Ganganagar Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd. and his date of birth is 2.5.1951. The petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 2.5.2009. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued the order on 17.9.2008 (Annex.3) under Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 (for short 'the Rules of 2003') whereby the societies in general have been directed to consider the matter regarding increase of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. The said direction issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur dated 17.9.2008 has not been complied by the respondent society and, therefore, the petitioner was informed that he is to retire on 2.5.2009.3. According to the petitioner, the respondent society is running in profits for last three financial years and is bound to take a decision by way of ...
Tag this Judgment!A.C.T.O., Anti Evasion Vs. Power One Micro System (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2675
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This sales tax revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sale Tax Act has been filed challenging the validity of the judgment and order passed by the Tax Board, Ajmer dated 17.04.2002 in appeal No. 1334/2000.2. Brief facts of the case are that the goods in transit Power One Make On Line UPS System 5 KVA being brought by the respondent dealer from Bangalore to Jaipur were intercepted and checked at Ratanpur on Ahmedabad - Udaipur route by the petitioner authority on 04.01.2000. The goods were notified goods, therefore, the same were required to be accompanied by declaration form ST-18A in respect of registered dealer and declaration form ST-18AA in respect of unregistered dealer and other individuals. Since the goods in transit brought by the respondent was not accompanied by declaration form ST-18AA, therefore, as per provisions of Section 78 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'), read with Rule 53 of the Rajast...
Tag this Judgment!Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj2973
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 23.05.1987 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby he convicted accused-appellant in the offence under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal succinctly are thus:On 27th January, 1985 at about 8.00 a.m. when P.W. 8, Shri Mahesh Chand Dubey, S.H.O. Police Station Khairthal, restrict Alwar was coming back after conducting an investigation in case no. 11 registered in the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 406 of Indian Penal Code, received an information from an informer that one Rohtash son of Badri Prasad resident of Khairthal, Alwar was manufacturing gun powder. Having received this informatio...
Tag this Judgment!Salim and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3017
K.S. Chaudhari, J.1. This appeal and revision arise out of the Judgment dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Special Judge, (Decoity Affected Area Court), Karauli, hence, decided by a common judgment.2. Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Decoity, Karauli by which he convicted accused appellants under Sections 148 IPC and sentenced each accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further under go one month's rigorous imprisonment and convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo five month's rigorous imprisonment and acquitted them under Sections 201, 396/149 IPC.3. Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Decoity, Karauli, by which respondent No. 1 to 3 have been acquitted under Sections 148, 3...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1970
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. In response to the invitation of applications for grant of licences for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)/beer for the year 2009-2010, the petitioner applied for issuance of license for such liquor shop at Nokha, Bikaner; and the lottery having been drawn in his favour, a sanction order came to be issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2009 in response whereof he deposited the requisite amount with the respondents.However, a complaint came to be made against the petitioner that an FIR bearing number 57/2004 had been lodged against him at Police Station, Nokha for offences under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act ('the Act of 1950') and Sections 341 and 382/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and challan had been filed; and, thus, he was ineligible to be granted the license in question. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the District Excise Officer, Bikaner ('the DEO') issued a notice to the petitioner on 24.03.2009 proposing to cancel the licence...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »