Rajasthan Court May 2011 Judgments
Ghulam Abbas and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2011
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2011, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, District Chittorgarh, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 302, 460 and 120B IPC, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 06.01.2007, one Vishal Salvi had submitted a written report before the Police Station Pratapgarh, wherein he claimed that around 7:45 PM, he was sitting in the office of Mr. Giriraj Joshi, Advocate. Suddenly a man walked in to the office and pulled out a fire arm. He placed the fire arm on Mr. Joshi's temple and fired a shot. He also shot Mr. Joshi on the right side of his chest. Mr. Joshi collapsed at the spot; the attacker fled away. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No.17/2007, was chalked out for offences under Sections 302, 458 read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that Ameen Khan, Rosham Khan and Bablu invited Wasim Khan to ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2011
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 9.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sirohi in Sessions Case No.131/2001. The trial court by accepting the prosecution case convicted appellant Suresh for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and appellant Prabhu Ram for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants are sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and further to undergo one year more rigorous imprisonment in default to pay fine. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of these appeals are that on basis of a telephonic message given by Juharmal (PW-15) on 3.6.2001 at 06:15 PM an entry was recorded in the daily diary at Police Station Sheoganj. As per the information (Ex.D/1) recorded, Juharmal while undergoing to Badla from Dhubana saw a car being No.RJ-19-T-1015 going towards Badla in high speed. Suresh, Ramesh and one more person were sit...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2011
The two letters addressed to Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court by 12 prisoners lodged at Central Jail, Udaipur are treated as this one petition for writ. All the 12 prisoners are undergoing life term imprisonment at Central Jail, Udaipur and being eligible they applied for grant of permanent parole as per the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). The necessary details relating to each of the petitioners are as under:- 1. Suresh – This petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for life imprisonment. As on 28.2.2011 he has served 20 years 10 months and 25 days sentence, out of that 17 years 4 months and 10 days is actual imprisonment. Permanent parole has been denied to him on basis of the negative recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara. The recommendation so made is available on record as Anx.R/2 and according to that the...
Tag this Judgment!Nims University Rajasthan Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2011
(1) Initially, this Court intended to hear the case finally, but the respondents No.1,2 and 5 have filed reply / counter affidavit today i.e. 27.5.2011 during the court hours. However, the respondent No.6 - Dental Council of India has filed reply on 23.5.2011 but the same was not on record, therefore, the case was passed over and all the aforesaid replies/counter affidavit were called from the Registry and taken on record and thereafter, the case was taken up for hearing,in the second round. In these circumstances, counsel for the parties were asked to address the Court finally either on 30th or 31st May, 2011 i.e. the next working days just before the summer vacations or on any other date during the summer vacations but as the Pre-entrance Test for admission to MBBS/BDS has been scheduled to be held on 29.5.2011, therefore, Mr.Ashok Gaur, Sr.Advocate appearing for the petitioner Institution has expressed urgency for consideration of the interim relief today. (2) After careful perusal ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Veshnav Vs. Smt. Vidhya Veshnav
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2008,passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur,whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitionerhusband to pay a maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to therespondent-wife, Smt. Vidhya Veshnav, the petitionerhusband has approached this Court. 2. The baief facts of the case are that the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife were married on 20.09.1999 according to the Hindu customs and rites. According to the respondent-wife, for the first three years, the petitioner-husband and his family members kept her well. However, subsequently they started demanding that she should bring Rs.5,000/- from her parents. Moreover, they started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. 3. Eventually, she was thrown out of the house. Because of their cruelty, she had filed a criminal case for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 406 and 120B IPC, which is pending before the courts of Kanod. The respondent-wife also claims that the petitioner-husband...
Tag this Judgment!Punit Vs. Smt. Sunita
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2007, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 127(3) Cr.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent were married. However, subsequently they were divorced. 2. Initially, Smt Sunita had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance from the petitioner. The said application was accepted and the petitioner was directed to pay a maintenance of Rs.600/- per month to Sunita. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 127(3) Cr.P.C. ostensibly on the ground that Sunita has married one Ratan Kumar. Therefore, the petitioner need not maintain her any longer. 3. In order to buttress this case, the petitioner had submitted not only his own affidavit, but also the affidavit of other persons. However, vide order dated 19.05.2007, the learned Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Rajasthan Engineering Works and anr. Vs. Lrs. of Late Sh. Rajmal a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant – tenant aggrieved by the concurrent findings of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord and subletting. 2. Without challenging these findings of facts, which resulted in eviction decree against the defendant – tenant, the only point pressed before this Court for admission of the present second appeal is that the suit property; a shop situated at Bhilwara had been partitioned and therefore, the suit for eviction could not be maintained in respect of partitioned suit premises by one of the co-sharers only, namely, Arun Kumar for whose bonafide need, the suit for eviction was decreed. 3. The learned counsel for the defendants – appellants through Sh. L.R. Mehta, Advocate relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kalooram Govindram V/s Commissioner of Income Tax reported in AIR 1966 SC 4 urged that in view of admission in the plaint itself that the suit property had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Civil Judge (J D ) and ors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, th petitioner has impugned the order dated 16.2.2010, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jhunjhunu set-aside the ex-parte decree rendered by the court on 20th July, 2006 passed in Suit No. 2/1997. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that despite the service of notice, the respondent no. 2/2 Smt. Suresh Devi did not appear in the Court. She filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC imploring to set-aside the ex-parte decree after two years of passing the judgment and ex-pate decree. The respondents did not care to appear in the Court and the petitioner should not be asked to suffer for the negligent attitude of the respondent no.2/2. The impugned order dated 16.2.2010 is not just in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the contrary, the same is arbitrary and capricious, which deser...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Ramcharan Nand Kishore Vs. Shri Hari Shankar Gaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 29th August, 2000, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur took the cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and proceeded against the petitioners. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the learned trial court sans recording the statement of the complainant as also the other witnesses, took cognizance merely on the basis of complaint and issued summons for the appearance of the accused persons in the Court on 21st November, 2000. As per the scheme of CrPC for the trial of the case on a complaint case, it is mandatory for the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present if any, but in the instant case, learned trial court did not examine the complainant an...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurav Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. The accused petitioner Gaurav Agarwal has impugned the order dated 1st June, 1998, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 7 (1)(7) of P.F.A. Act, 1954 readwith Rule 50 (1) of Rules 1955 and proceeded against the accused persons namely Ram Singh, Gaurav and Radha Devi. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner Gaurav Agarwal as also the learned PP appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order dated 1st June, 1998, it is noticed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur took the cognizance of the afore-stated offences on the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and proceeded against the above mentioned three accused persons and ordered to summon them. Aggrieved with this order, M/s. A.P. Agro Private Limited filed a revision petition, which stood decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »