Rajasthan Court April 2010 Judgments

Manohar Vs. Suresh Tekchandani and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

1. By way of filing present misc. appeal, appellant is challenging the order dated 20.06.2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Civil Case No. 21/2008, whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 was rejected on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.2. In this case, on 12th October, 2009 while issuing notice to respondent No. 2, the following order was passed by this Court:Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order sent by the Court regarding production of the children namely Rahul and Neha, said to be lodged at Orphanage before respondent No. 2 - Incharge-Onkar Nanda Trust, Hripur Kalan, Dehradun (Uttranchal) was torn out in the present of the appellant and his counsel, but in this regard, there is no affidavit or any other document on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the notice sent to respondent No. 2 has also been received with an endorsement that he clearly refused to accept th...

Nar Singh Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Letter petition has been sent by prisoner against rejection of his application seeking 1st parole Under Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoner's Release on parole Rules, 1958 ('Rules, 1958') on the basis of recommendations made by District Parole Committee (respondents) in its meeting held on 22/10/09.2. As alleged, petitioner was convicted and sentenced U/Ss 436/149, 452, 148, 427/149, IPC to undergo Five years' RI vide judgment dt. 15/05/2008 passed by Addl. Sess. Judge (Fast Track) Jhalawar, in Sess. Case-49/2007.3. After completion of 1/4th of sentence petitioner claiming himself as eligible, applied for first regular parole for twenty days which was placed for consideration before District Parole Committee in its meeting held on 22/10/2009 wherein his case was considered but the Committee rejected his prayer for regular parole on the premise of adverse police report as is evident from order dt. 06/11/09 (Ann.R/3).4. Notice was issued vide order dt. 18/01/2009. In reply, r...

Bajrang Lal Sharma and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) 2008 (2) WLC 406 clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 6500-10500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on the...

Smt. Rajeshwari Rajoria Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) 2008 (2) WLC 406 clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 6500-10500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on the...

Kapoor Chand JaIn Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) 2008 (2) WLC 406 clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 6500-10500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on the...

Raghvendra S. Parmar Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) 2008 (2) WLC 406clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 6500-10500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on them...

Sattar Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Govind Mathur, J.1. By the judgment dated 14.7.2003, learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced as under:Section 302 IPC - Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.Section 4/25 of the Arms Act - Two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.10.2002, the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jaisalmer received a telephonic information from Allah Bux that one Sattar has committed murder of one Iliyas by cutting his throat by a knife. The Station House Officer with other police officials immediately rushed to the spot of occurrence, where a First Information Report was lodged at the instance of Smt. Lehra, mother of deceased Iliyas,...

Satya NaraIn @ Kalu Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

C.M. Totla, J.1. Challenged is appellant's conviction and sentence (a) for the offence of Section 302 life imprisonment with fine Rs. 2,000/-, (b) Section 342 six months' simple imprisonment with fine Rs. 500/- recorded vide judgment dated 7.10.03 in Sessions Case No. 31/02 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar.2. According to prosecution at 1.15 a.m. on 22.9.02, (i.e. intervening night of January 21st and 22nd), Laxman Das PW 1 with his sister's husband Mohan Lal PW 9, arriving at police station, Purani Abadi, Ganganagar, informed SHO PW 16 that at evening, he was at home and at about 10.30 - 11.00 p.m., a person, residing at Ravi Chowk ward No. 11, name not known to him, near where his (PW 18) maternal uncle Satyanarain also reside, came and informed PW 1 to take care of brother Jagdish, with whom maternal uncle is quarreling, so PW 1 and Mohan Lal, quickly went to house of Satyanarain and knocked the door closed from in side, but door not opened, so PW 1 and ...

Khushala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Govind Mathur, J.1. Accused appellant Khushala Ram is sentenced, for life term with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and further to undergo one month's imprisonment in event of failure to pay the fine, on being convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code under the judgment dated 23.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur.2. As per prosecution, PW-1 Rajuram on 5.10.2002 at 09.00 AM submitted a written report to Station House Officer, Police Station Mathania with assertion that his daughter Lali aged 10 years at about 09:00 AM of the last day went to Ratranada pasture to graze the goats. His wife was all alone at home. One Jetharam son of Tulchharam, by caste Jat, resident of Bigoi at about 02:00 PM committed rape with her daughter Lali in the fields of Shivji Purohit near Basni pasture. At about 03:00 PM goats came to the house but Lali was not with them, thus, his wife went for search of Lali and she was found in the fields of Aasu...

Rakesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(2)Raj1847

M.N. Bhandari, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition involves following important questions of law:1. In a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') whether evidence of the complainant may be given on affidavit at pre-summoning stage?2. What is the effect of Sections 4 & 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') on Section 145 of the N.I. Act. Whether the provision of Section 145 has overriding effect over the provisions of the Cr.P.C.?2. It is a case where complaint was filed for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant submitted affidavit at pre-summoning stage and thereupon order of cognizance was passed. The petitioner herein filed an application for recalling the order of cognizance on the ground that complainant should have been examined on oath. Application was dismissed vide order dated 1.2.2010 holding that it has been filed only with a view to delay the matter as other...