Rajasthan Court July 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Deepak Singh at Deepu Vs. the State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosec ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that prosecutrix in fact accompanied with the petitioner out of her free will. She got married with petitioner in Arya Samaj on 24.05.2009. Prosecutrix, in her statement, also admitted the fact that she stayed with petitioner for two-and-a- half month and they used to sleep in common room in a house. Mother of the petitioner was also residing in that very house. There was nothing like rape. Prosecutrix has subsequently developed theory of rape in her statement under pressure of her parents otherwise the tenor of the statement and other evidence on record including the photograph, certificate of Arya Samaj and affidavit of the girl merely show that it was consent case of marriage and consensual sex. Challan has been filed. Trial may take a long. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail a...
Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that first bail application of the petitioner was rejected by order of this court dated 01.04.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to again apply for bail before the trial court after statements of Sonu, Bansi Lal, Ram Prasad Bhati, Lalita Devi and Ram Prasad Bhatt are recorded. The prosecution was directed to record those statement on priority basis. The statements of those witnesses have been recorded and all the witnesses have turned hostile. In the circumstances the prosecution is not likely to succeed. There is no previous case ever registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, however, he could not dispute the fact that all the witnesses have turned hostile. 4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing a...
Mohan Lal Verma Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. The petitioner who was holding the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer on account of contemplation of enquiry was placed under suspension by the authority in exercise of power u/R.13 of CCA Rules,1958 vide order dt.15.06.2011 (Annx.10). It will be relevant to record that in column-1 of endorsement made it has been recorded that in reference to letter dt.14.06.2011 the complaint was examined by the Additional Director, NHM and on the basis of the report the authority considered it appropriate to place him under suspension on contemplation of enquiry. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that action taken by the respondent placing him under suspension is on account of frivolous complaint, copy of which has been placed on record as Annx.6, which was made against him with ulterior motive. 3. Counsel submits that action of the authority placing him under suspension is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. The submission made is wholly without substance for the r...
Ramkumar Sharma at Monu Vs. the State of Rajasthan Through Public Pros ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that allegation of rape against petitioner is totally false. Prosecutrix herself was consenting party to whatever happened to her. She went to Bangalore to act as a bar dancer and thereafter went to Siliguri accompanied by sister of accused petitioner, where both worked as bar dancer. Learned counsel further argued that she pressurized the petitioner to marry her and when he declined, the criminal case was registered. Petitioner even otherwise is in jail for almost last two months. There is no case previously registered against the petitioner. Petitioner would undertake not to indulge in any such or other offence in future and would maintain good conduct while on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case ...
Mohd. Arif Gauri Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the offence alleged against petitioner is under Section 452/34 of the IPC and 3 of the PDPP Act, maximum sentence provided for that is six months; petitioner is in jail for last about two weeks. There is only one previous case registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 452 IPC. Petitioner would undertake not to indulge in any such or other offence in future and would maintain good conduct in future. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioner, namely, Mohd. Arif Gauri Son of Shri Abdul Vahid, Resident of Nayapura, Pidawa, Dis...
Divisional Manager Rsrtc and anr. Vs. Suresh Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The intra court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26-9-2007, passed by Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4666/2000, whereby partly allowed the writ petition and set aside the back wages prior to the date of award dated 25-4-2000, and upheld the reinstatement. 3. The respondent was appointed as water-man (Jaldhari) by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (`RSRTC' for short). He served with effect from 1984 till 16-5-1988. On removal from service, the respondent approached the Labour Court, Bharatpur. Since the workman was rendering service on a permanent post, the learned Labour Court held it a case of retrenchment, unfair labour practice and vide award dated 25-4-2000 directed reinstatement of the workman with back wages. The award was challenged before the Single Bench by filing writ petition No.4666/2000. The Single Bench partly allowed the writ petition by setting aside back wages prior to the ...
Hajarilal Vs. the State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that prosecutrix (PW-2), in her court statement, has denied allegation of rape by petitioner and has stated that she had accompanied the petitioner to a place known as Maid. Learned counsel further contended that although the prosecutrix, in examination-in-chief or her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has levelled allegation of rape but in the cross-examination she has clearly stated that petitioner as well the prosecutrix were labours and working at brick-klin and that she had accompanied the petitioner out of her free will and went to Ajitgarh where number of persons were there but she did not raise any hue and cry. At the end of the cross-examination she denied that any rape was committed upon her. Even according to the statement of her father Moolchand (PW-1), marriage of this witness...
Vijay Singh and Others Vs. Phool Chand Agarwal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since appeal has been admitted, therefore, interim order passed by this Court may be confirmed till final disposal of the appeal, whereas learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that appellants have not come with clean hands; they had already sold disputed property to third person vide Registered Sale Deed dated 18.08.2008, during pendency of suit itself, despite their written reply to temporary injunction application to the effect that they will not sale or alienate the property in dispute. A photostat copy of Sale Deed executed by the appellants has also been annexed with reply to stay application. 3. Learned counsel for respondent further submitted that since appellants have already sold the disputed property, therefore, they have no interest in the disputed property, therefore, no useful p...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi Vs. Ms. Raghuveer Singh an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This revision petition is directed against order dated 31.01.2008 passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. Assessing officer vide its order dated 29.01.2005 levied penalty under Section 78(10-A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'), but on an appeal preferred on behalf of the assessee, the same was set aside by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), First, Commercial Tax, Jaipur vide order dated 27.04.2005. Order of appellate authority was upheld by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 31.01.2008, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although all the relevant documents including Form ST 18-A were available and produced for checking at the time of checking of the vehicle/goods, but ...
Tara Chand Vs. State and anr
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. By way of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 11th July, 2003 as also 4th February, 2004 rendered by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Case No. 174/2003 and Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Revision No. 68/2003 respectively. 2. Having perused the order dated 11th July, 2003 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, Bonli, it is noticed that one FIR No. 198/2001 came to be registered at Police Station, Bonli for the offences under Section 379, 323, 341, 504 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police after completion of investigation, gave the Final Report. On the protest petition being filed by the complainant, the learned trial court examined the complainant under Section 200 and recorded the statement of the witnesses namely Ram Pal and Dinesh under Section 202 of CrPC. Haivng found that there was ample evidence with r...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »