Rajasthan Court May 2011 Judgments
Uttam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for willful absence from duty and in the regular inquiry held against the petitioner; the misconduct of the petitioner was proved. The disciplinary authority by accepting the report of inquiry officer passed impugned order dated 31st December, 2004; whereby, the penalty of withholding three grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed. Against the order of punishment dated 31st!!2. December, 2004 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi an appeal was preferred by the petitioner but the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 04th April, 2006 (Annexure-8). The petitioner further preferred a review petitioner before His Excellency the Governor that too was rejected vide order dated 07th July, 2009. Meaning thereby, there is concurrent finding of all three authorities with regard to misconduct committed by the petitioner for willful absent ...
Tag this Judgment!Kheta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. This appeal came up before us for orders on2. An application seeking suspension of sentence, but with consent of counsel for parties we have heard the appeal itself finally.3. In brief, facts of the case are that complainant Magh Singh (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Dungargarh on 19.2.2006 at 08:15 AM. As per the written report, on 17.2.2006 at about 10:00 PM Jagmal Singh and Ranjeet Singh conveyed Magh Singh that his brother Mool Singh has received certain injuries and he is lying in unconscious state. Magh Singh then rushed to the field and found Mool Singh lying in a jeep of Ramnarain in unconscious state. Parta Ram, Karni Singh and Kheta Ram were also sitting in the same jeep. Mool Singh was brought to the hospital at Bikaner where he was declared dead. After returning to village, on inquiry Kheta Ram informed that Mool Singh alongwith Koja Ram came to him on 17.2.2006 and demanded a sum of Rs.200/- i.e. said to be due. He then gave a "aadia" blow t...
Tag this Judgment!Khartha Ram Vs. Lrs of Late Smt. Lali Devi
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to consider interference in this matter particularly when the application moved by the petitioner under the Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. is said to be pending. The petitioner is, of course, free to make request to the learned Trial Court for appropriate proceedings but this Court finds no reason to entertain this writ petition where the petitioner seeks stay over execution proceedings. The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with the observation aforesaid....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Manju and anr. Vs. State (Home Affairs) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: May-17-2011
1. The petitioners, said to have contacted marriage on 22.04.2011 at Arya Samaj, Hanumangarh Junction, have filed this writ petition stating threat perceptions and apprehensions because of this inter-caste marriage, particularly at the hands of respondent No.4, the grand father of the petitioner No.1. It appears that an FIR bearing number No. 101/2011 (Annex.3) has been lodged at the Police Station, Sadulshahar for the offences under Sections 366 and 120-B IPC particularly accusing the petitioner No. 2 and a few other persons of having abducted the petitioner No.1. When the petitioners are aware of such FIR having been lodged, it is rather expected of them to co-operate in the process of law; and there appears no reason to entertain this writ petition, filed with some uncertain and vague allegations.2. The petitioners submit that they have made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar on 23.04.2011 (Annex.4) seeking protection. It does not appear, however, from t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Lakhara Vs. State (Accounts) and ors
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: May-17-2011
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, working on the post of Divisional Accountant seeks to question the order dated 19.04.2011 (Annex.4) whereby he has been transferred from the Office of Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Nagaur Division, Nagaur to the Office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Merta City, District Nagaur; and so also the order dated 28.04.2011 (Annex.5) whereby the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') has rejected the appeal filed against the transfer order.2. It was submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner that he was posted on the vacant post of Divisional Accountant in the Office of Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Nagaur pursuant to the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.08.2010, after taking his due consent on 16.09.2010 (Annex.2). The petitioner alleged that he has been transferred under the impugned order only in order to accommo...
Tag this Judgment!Tanuj Vaishnav and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on: May-17-2011
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10866/2010 is preferred by 17 petitioners seeking a direction to cancel the examination of Nursing Grade-II Competitive Examination, 2010 on the count that certain unsocial persons disclosed the question paper of the examination concerned prior to conduct of the examination and that vitiates the entire process of selection. In the petition for writ aforesaid, this Court on 24.11.2010 passed the following order:-"On 20.10.2010, the Nurse Grade-IICompetitive Examination, 2010(Examination Code No.23) was conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in pursuant to a Notification dated 2.6.2010. As per the petitioners, the question paper of the examination concerned was disclosed by certain persons prior to 20.10.2010 and a criminal case in this regard was lodged. Certain arrest of accused-persons was also made on the same day, but despite discloser of question paper, the respondent Commission proceeded with the examination and on basis of such examina...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia Vs. Mr.K.K. Singh
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, namely order dated 05.03.2011, passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge had issued process under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. Thus, they are being decided together by this common judgment.2. Being taken from S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.333/2011, the brief facts are that on 19.02.2009 the Parchabayan of Sheeshram, respondent No.2, was recorded by the police. In his Parchabayan, Sheeshram claimed that on 18.02.2009, while he was returning from the village Deda Ki Dhani, along with his nephew, he was assaulted by Rakesh Jat, Suresh Jat, Pradeep, Chidia and by two or four other persons, whose names he does not know. According to him, he was first assaulted by Pradeep and Rakesh and subsequently by others. According to him, these persons were armed with Lathies and Barchi. He further claimed that his nephew, Dilip, called up Dharmveer, who came there in ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Narayan and Others Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: May-10-2011
1.The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bassi, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 323 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.08.2008, the complainant, Hari Narayan, submitted a written report at Police Station Kanota, Jaipur (Rural) with regard to the occurrence which took place on 15.08.2008 at 9-10 PM. In the said written report, he claimed that on 15.08.2008 around 9-10 PM, when he was sitting in the house, the accused-petitioners had forcefully entered into the house and had assaulted him with stones. Consequently, he had suffered certain injuries on the internal parts of his body. Upon hearing the noise, his neighbours came and rescued him. Upon receiving the said written report, the police registered a FIR, FIR No.425/2008, against the accused-petitioners for offences under Section 143, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: May-10-2011
1.Relying on the cases of Angana & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 3 SCC 767], Takht Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. [(2001) 10 SCC 463], and Dara Singh v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Cr. Misc. Second Bail (for Suspension of Sentence) Application No.9/2010, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.575/2008, decided on 25.01.2011], Mr. Vijay Singh Shekhawat, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently argued that in case the accused-appellant has served a substantial part of his sentence and in case the criminal appeal cannot be decided within the remaining period of the sentence, then the sentence of the accused-appellant should be suspended. According to him, the accused-appellants have already served four years out of the seven years of their sentence. Thus, they have undergone a substantial part of their sentence.2. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Baisla, the learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Paresh Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, have contended that even the cases refer...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on: May-09-2011
1.Aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325, 326, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the prosecution the injured, Bhikam Chand, had received merely six injuries out of which only two injuries, namely injuries Nos. 1 & 2 are said to be grievous in nature. Both the injuries, caused by the sharp-edged weapon, are on the non-vital part of the body. However, as they are not on the vital parts of the body, there is no possibility of death being caused in the ordinary nature of course. Thus, the charge for offence under Section 307 IPC is unsustainable. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Man Mohan & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan [2006 (2) Cr.L.R. (R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »