Rajasthan Court July 2011 Judgments
Rajeev Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. Learned counsel for appellant has filed an application for early hearing of the appeal on the ground that appellant is in jail for last more than five years, therefore, appeal be heard at an early date. 2. Application is allowed. At the request of learned counsel for parties, the arguments were heard and appeal is being disposed off finally. 3. Learned counsel for appellant, at the very outset, submitted that he is not challenging the order of conviction of appellant passed by trial court in view of overwhelming prosecution evidence against appellant, but his submission is that sentence of imprisonment of the appellant under Section 394 IPC be reduced from ten years rigorous imprisonment to a period of imprisonment about five years three months already undergone by him or to a reasonable period, which this Court thinks fit and proper. 4. Learned public prosecutor did not oppose the prayer of learned counsel for appellant in view of the fact that order of conviction has not been chal...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and revision petition is being disposed off finally. 3. Petitioner Bhanwar Singh S/o. Ganpat Singh has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., challenging impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby his Criminal Appeal No. 45/2009 was dismissed, which was preferred against judgment and order dated 19.07.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 1251/2004, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused- petitioner Under Section Sentence Bhanwar Singh 415 r/w. Section 417 IPC To undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. 468 IPC To undergo 2 years' simple imp...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Kumar JaIn Vs. District Judge, Ajmer and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 20th April, 2011 rendered by the learned District Judge, Ajmer, whereby he ordered the petitioner – tenant to pay mesne-profit @ Rs. 2000/- (Rs. Two Thousand) per month to the landlord-respondents. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that a judgment and decree with regard to eviction of the premises came to be passed by the learned trial court on 29th October, 2010. Aggrieved with this judgment and decree, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal. The learned appellate court having considered the submissions of both the parties, directed the petitioner-tenant to pay an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month as mesne-profits to the landlord-respondents. 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 held that the appellate court is required to pass ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. This revision petition is directed against impugned order dated 25th February, 2010 passed by trial court, whereby a charge under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act has been ordered to be framed against petitioner. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for framing the charge. I have also examined the copy of charge, which has been placed on record. There is sufficient evidence available in the case to proceed against petitioner, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari & Ors (2000) 2 SCC 57 has held that at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court is required to see whether prima facie there was sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. The Court cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in the matter at this stage. 5. In view of above dis...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Mohan Pancholi Vs. State and Another.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A joint application has been filed by the accused-petitioner as well as complainant-Respondent No. 2 for acquittal of the accused-petitioner on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Both the parties were present in person yesterday i.e. 25.07.2011. The file was sent to Deputy Registrar(Judicial) of this Court for verification and attestation of the compromise. The compromise is duly signed by the parties and their respective counsel. The compromise has been attested by Deputy Registrar(Judicial) of this Court on 25.07.2011. 3. The accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 31.07.1998 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Being ...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Chand Vs. Murlidhar and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 29.7.2009, whereby the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional evidence on record. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that in para no.4 of the application, the plaintiff-respondent is found to have made altogether contradictory submissions. In one breath, it is said that the documents, which he wanted to produce were not within his knowledge during the pendency of the suit and in another breath, he submitted that he could not produce the said documents even after exercise of due diligence. This self-contradictory averment gives rise to a ridicule situation as to how the respondent-plaintiff could endeavour to find out the documents, which were not at all within his knowledge? The application filed by the respondent-plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!Late Smt. Kasturi Devi and Another Vs. Agyapal Singh Chabra Ajmer and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 6th August, 2010 rendered by the learned District Judge, Ajmer, whereby he ordered the petitioner – tenant to pay mesne-profit @ Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) per month to the landlord Agyapal Singh Chabra. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 3. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the impugned order, it is noticed that a judgment and decree with regard to eviction of the premises came to be passed by the learned trial court on 15th May, 2010. Aggrieved with this judgment and decree, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal. The learned appellate court having considered the submissions of both the parties, directed the petitioner-tenant to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month as mesne-profits to the landlord-respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and not based ...
Tag this Judgment!Nab Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. This criminal appeal under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed against the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the application (No.47/2011) for bail filed by the accused-appellant had been rejected. 2. The prosecution case was initiated on lodging of a First Information Report (No.85/2007), at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer for the offences under Section 302, 307, 323 and 295 IPC and also under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act. Thereafter, during the pendency of the investigation, which commenced after lodging of the said report, the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency, New Delhi by Government of India, vide order dated 01.04.2011. Therefore, the investigation in the present matter was conducted by the Agency from 06.04.2011 onwards and an F.I.R. (No.4/2011) came to be registered by the National Investigation Agency. 3. Later on an application for grant ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Radhey Shyam Singhal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Learned counsel for appellant submits that similar criminal leave to appeal No.34/2010 against accused respondent on the same point filed by appellant has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19th April, 2010, therefore, present case is squarely covered by the above referred order. 2. I have also examined the impugned order dated 27th November, 2009 passed by trial court acquitting the accused respondent of the offence under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. 3. Learned trial court has observed that from 26th May, 2007, the case was fixed for complainant's evidence and despite grant of several opportunities, no evidence has been led on behalf of complainant, therefore, in absence of any evidence, the accused cannot be convicted. 4. The reasons assigned by the trial court for acquittal of the accused respondent is absolutely legal and justify and no interference in the same is called for. 5. There is no merit in this...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Yogendra Kumar Garg
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 9th September, 2008 as also the order dated 28th February, 2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Badi and District Judge, Dholpur respectively. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that a mining lease came to be granted by the petitioner-defendant no.2 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for a period of 10 years with effect from 6th August, 1981 to 5th August, 1991. The dead rent was accordingly deposited by the respondent from time to time. Thereafter on 9th October, 2007, the petitioner-defendant no.2 cancelled the lease and took the mine in possession on 20th October, 2007. Aggrieved with this order, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application of temporary injunction filed under o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »