Rajasthan Court June 2011 Judgments
Arjun Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. This is IIIrd bail application filed on behalf of the accused petitioner Arjun Singh U/s. 439 of CrPC. 2. The accused petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the offences under Section 302 and 201 readwith Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that almost all the material witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. 4. In view of the statements of the material witnesses, nothing remains left and the purpose shall not be served in detaining the accused petitioner in custody. Hence, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial of the case is at its concluding stage and only five witnesses are left to be examined. Hence, at this stage, the petitioner should not be admitted to bail. 6. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar Vs. Ms Subhash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.09.2008 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby petitioner's appeal has been dismissed. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) as well as Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer for setting aside the order of Assessing Officer levying penalty against assessee under Section 78(10-A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act of 1994'). 4. Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute that all the required documents, as per provisions of Section 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994, were available and produced at the time of checking of vehicle/goods and required tax had already been paid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer levied penalty in the present case only on the ground that seal of check post of State of Rajasthan on the documents was not t...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar Vs. Ms Parle Biscuits Pvt. L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Assessing Officer vide its order dated 07.02.2006, levied penalty under Section 31(12) of The Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 on the ground that at the time of checking of documents, there was no seal of check post on the documents. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.06.2006 allowed the appeal of assessee and set aside the order of assessment. Thereafter, Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred. 3. Similar controversy was considered in detail by this Court in S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.179/2010- Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi v. M/s Satveer Yadav, decided on 24.11.2010 and it was held that affixing of seal of check post on the documents is not mandatory requirement. Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Another v. Tajiander Pal, (2003) 6 Tax Update, Part-3, Page 84 ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Bheem Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. By way of the instant criminal misc. petition, the petitioner – State has impugned the order dated 4th September 2001, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tijara ordered the investigation of a case pertaining to FIR No. 122/2000 of Police Station, Bhiwadi to be conducted by an officer of the rank of S.P. or above, as also the order dated 20th May, 2002, whereby the court asked for an explanation from S.P., Alwar who disobeyed the orders of the Court. 2. Learned PP canvassed that the learned trial court committed grave error in directing the investigation of a criminal case to be made by Superintendent of Police of the District. The learned trial court exceeded his jurisdiction as such power to direct the investigation to be made by the SP vests only in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of CrPC. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is totally arbitrary and perverse, which needs to be set-aside. 3. E Converso, th...
Tag this Judgment!Nishar Ahmed Vs. State and ors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. By way of the instant criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 19th April, 2006, whereby Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sikar dismissed the revision petition as also the order dated 19th October, 2002, whereby the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) No.2, Sikar took cognizance of the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 readwith 120B of IPC and ordered to summon the accused persons including the petitioner through a bailable warrant of Rs. 2000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the mutation are fiscal proceedings, which are always subject to correction and whatever the act is alleged to have been done by the petitioner, has been done by him in discharge of his official duties. He further canvassed that prior to passing the impugned orders, no prosecution sanction had been obtained. However, the learned courts below sans taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, passed the impugned orders arbitrarily, which deserve to...
Tag this Judgment!Bihari Lal Meena Vs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan City in Case No.225/2011, whereby his application for restoration of Case No.3475/2009 has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Counsel for petitioner was present before lunch in the trial Court on 03.12.2010, but when he came in the Court after lunch, then he came to know that matter has been dismissed in default. He moved an application for restoration of the case on the same day i.e. 03.12.2010, but the learned trial Court dismissed the same vide order dated 10.03.2011, which is per se illegal and against the principle of natural justice, therefore, the said order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision of the case on merits. 4. It appears that petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for grant of suc...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur Vs. Ms Rajoria Gems and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 21.07.2008 passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed. 3. From the assessment order and orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) and Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, annexed with this revision petition, it reveals that assessee/respondent No.1 applied for composition certificate under Notification dated 30.04.1999. The Assessing Officer issued certificate for one year only. Thereafter, assessee did not file any application for renewal of certificate. The Assessing Officer passed the impugned order raising demand against assessee on the ground that composition scheme was for five years, therefore, assessee is liable to make the payment for five years. 4. There is no dispute that assessee applied for certificate under Notification dated 30.04.1999, but the Assessing Officer granted certificate only for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahant Janaki Jeevan Sharan(Deceased) and ors. Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners. 2. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.07.1999 passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Jaipur City(West), Jaipur in Civil Suit No.249/1991, whereby application filed by petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC has been dismissed. 3. It is borne out from the impugned order that initially Smt. Kamla Goswami filed the present suit for possession and mesne profit in the trial Court first time on 19.02.1982 and on her death, an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was filed by one Mahant Janki Jeevan Sharan Ji, which was allowed and Mahant Janki Jeevan Sharan Ji was substituted in place of original plaintiff Late Smt. Kamla Goswami. Mahant Janki Jeevan Sharan also died on 13.11.1998, therefore, present petitioner Nos.2 to 12 moved an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for their substitution in his place on the ground that a trust was created by Late Mahant Janki Jeevan Sharan on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during arguments of case. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that alleged offence against petitioner and other co-accused are under Sections 379 and 420 of the IPC. The principal accused, namely, Habeeb Khan, from whom recovery of stolen money was made, has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this court in Bail Application No.5584/2011 vide order dated 15.06.2011. Other co-accused, namely, Sharif (Bail Application No.5919/2011 decided on 27.06.2011), Anwar Khan (Bail Application No.5098/2011 decided on 03.06.2011) and Ajay Singh (Bail application No.4824/2011 decided on 03.06.2011) have also been enlarged on bail by different orders of different coordinate benches of this court. The bail application of petitioner was rejected with liberty to him to apply for bail before court of Sessions itself after challan is filed against him. When...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that one FIR came to be registered at Police Station, Jurhera, wherein the police, after completion of investigation, gave the Final Report. The learned trial court, on protest petition, examined the complainant as also the injured witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC and having considered the medical report, site plan, FSL report, statement of witnesses, took the cognizance of the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and ordered to summon the accused Pramod through a warrant of arrest. Aggrieved with this order of summoning the accused through a warrant of arrest, the petitioner filed an application under Section 70 (2) of CrPC imploring the court to convert the warrant of arrest into bailable. The learned trial court vide order dated 6th June, 2007 dismissed the app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »