Rajasthan Court February 2010 Judgments

Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate on behalf of applicant Jitendra Singh S/o Ratan Singh in FIR No. 297/2009 of Police Station, Bandikui, District Dausa in the offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 341, 323, 448, 354 and 307 of IPC.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that co-accused persons namely Jagdish, Bhairu Singh and Ranjeet Singh have already been released on anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui. The first bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Jitendra Singh was dismissed by this Court on the ground that Vijay Singh and Roshan Singh, both, sustained injuries on skull, which were described by the Medical Jurist to be dangerous to life, but after re-medical examination of ...

Shiv Parwati Marble Vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR2010Raj86,RLW2010(2)Raj1418

Sangeet Lodha, J.1. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is identical, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The inspection report dated 20.7.09, provisional assessment order dated 31.7.09 issued by the Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited ('AWNL'), Kankroli directing the petitioners to deposit the electricity charges assessed under provisional assessment order without passing final assessment orders in terms of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act'), are impugned in each of these writ petitions.3. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the electric connections were released by the AWNL to the petitioners industrial establishments. On 20.7.09, a vigilance checking was made by the respondent No. 2 at the premises of the petitioners industrial establishments and the checking reports were prepared. As per the checking reports, the petitioners were found indulged in the...

Raju @ Rajkumar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this criminal appeal, accused-appellant Raju @ Rajkumar has challenged the judgment dated 29.07.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 10/2004, whereby, the learned trial Judge has held the accused-appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment.2. According to prosecution case, on 02.12.2003 at about 12.45 A.M., complainant P.W.-1 Shribhagwan made a telephonic call to Police Station Sadar Srigangangar, in which, it was informed by him that one tempo driver has thrown a person nearby his field, situated near Coca Cola factory at Mohanpura Road from his tempo. Upon receiving such information, a report in roznamacha was entered and S.H.O., Police Station Sadar Sriganganagar, Kesari Chand Jandu, P.W.-15 went on the spot along with police party wher...

Pappu @ Patwari and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

1. To question validity of the judgment dated 7.7.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 131/2002, this appeal is preferred.2. By the judgment impugned, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced for life term with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and further to go one month's simple imprisonment in even of default in depositing the fine. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.3. As per the record available, the prosecution case is that one Shri Kewal Singh son of Shri Mahendra Singh lodged a first information report at Police Station Peelibanga at 3:00 PM on 31.7.2002 with assertion that on 30.7.2002 at 7:00 PM acc...

Kanti Lal Meena Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR2010Raj65

Prakash Tatia, J.1. The substantial question of law referred to the larger Bench is as under:Whether the select list for admission or for service, where it is required to be prepared State-wise, can be prepared District-wise?2. The facts in short are that the petitioner sought admission to appear in Pre-Teachers Education Test (for short 'PTET') in the year 1999. These tests were conducted for the purpose of admission in various different Teachers Training Colleges for Bachelors Degree in Education. The petitioner was a member of Scheduled Tribe and he disclosed so in his application form and according to the petitioner, admission letter was also issued to the petitioner with specific note on the left top corner of the admission letter mentioning that it is for member of Scheduled Tribe. The result of the PTET was declared by the respondent-University and the petitioner was declared successful and according to the petitioner, in the category of Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was permi...

Shyam Sunder Soni Vs. Mithu Lal

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR2010Raj77,RLW2010(2)Raj1350

Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 24.3.2009 passed by the learned court below while deciding the application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. and order 38 Rule 1 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff.2. The learned court below has directed by the impugned order that since the defendant has already put in appearance in the court, the Court is not issuing any arrest warrant while disposing of the application under Order 38 Rule 1 C.P.C., but at the same time, the defendant within one month should deposit security for a sum of Rs. 9,33,350/-against the probable decree which may be passed by the Court in the civil suit instituted for recovery of the said sum by the plaintiff - respondent. In the case of default of deposit of said security, the defendant shall undergo civil imprisonment and thus, the Court decided both the applications under Order 38 Rule 1 and Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C.3. The defendant - petitioner filed this writ petit...

ishwar Lal Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2010CriLJ1876,RLW2010(2)Raj1364

Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned for the petitioner.2. The State Government by exercising power under Section 99A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 (sic 1898) (which was in force at relevant time) forfeited two publications namely, 'Jagat Hitkarlni' and 'Atm Puran' after opining that the said publications (books) are intended to promote the feelings and hatred in different classes of citizen of India and are berately and maliciously intended to outrage religious feelings of the Jain (Bania) community by insulting the religion and the religious of that class and the publication of work punishable under Section 153A and 295 of Indian Penal Code. To give effect to the intention of the State Government to forfeit the said publication (books) a notification was published in gazette of the Rajasthan dated 5.8.1957, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner.3. The petitioner has challenged the said notification dated 5.8.1957 after about 45 years from the date of the said ...

State of Rajasthan Vs. Oak Dan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Vineet Kothari, J.1. These appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The state has come up in the appeals against the order of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference court decided the market value of the land acquired for Bandi Sindhari Irrigation Project vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dtd.30.9.1998. The award in question was made on 6.6.2001 by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land owners approached the reference Court by way of applications under Section 18 of the Act and the said reference applications were decided on different dates. The said orders under Section 18 are under challenge in the present appeals.2. The only ground raised by the learned Counsel for the State in the present appeals is that the interest awarded by the learned Reference Court has been compounded in computation part of the reference order though only simple interest could be awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under...

Moti Lal Vs. L.Rs. of Gullu Khan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2008, whereby the learned trial court allowed the application of the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC for taking on record the judgment of the criminal court passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Cr. Case No. 77/98, State v. Moti Lal.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff Mr. M.R. Singhvi submitted that since the judgment of the criminal court does not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 43 of the Evidence Act, therefore, it cannot be relied upon and being inadmissible in evidence could not be allowed to have been taken on record. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Onkarmal and Anr. v. Banwarilal and Ors. AIR 1962 Raj. 127 and recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad, 2009 AIR SCW 4587 and also a decision of this Court in the case of Abhishekh Fabrics v. Rajesh Kumar in S.B. Civil Wri...

Manohar Lal Vs. L.Rs. of Govind

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR2010Raj72

Vineet Kothari, J.1. None present for the respondents despite service.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner - plaintiff has challenged the order dtd.20.8.2008, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. filed by petitioner - plaintiff seeking the defendants to be served with certain interrogatories filed with the said application.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court by the impugned order dtd.20.8.2008 has virtually tried to answer these questions in the impugned order on behalf of the defendants without even calling upon the defendants to answer the said interrogatories. He submitted, relying upon the various decisions, like Ramlal Sao v. Tansingh Lal Singh AIR 1952 Nag 135; Jamaitri Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Moti Lal : AIR 1960 Calcultta 536; Ganga Devi v. Krushana Prasad Sharma AIR 1967 Ori 19; Thakur Prasad v. Md. Sahayal AIR 1977 Pat 233; Janki Ballar Patnaik v. Benvett Colema...