Rajasthan Court July 2011 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shriphool and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant. 2. This leave to appeal has been preferred against impugned judgment and order dated 10th September, 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Karauli in sessions case No.9/2008, whereby trial court, while convicting the accused respondents under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, acquitted the accused respondents of the charges under Sections 307 and 353 IPC. 3. Learned public prosecutor submitted that this is a case of gun shot fire by accused persons on the person of police officials, therefore, trial court committed an illegality in acquitting the accused respondents of the charges under Sections 307 and 353 IPC. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellant in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for acquittal of accused respondents. Learned trial court has observed that there was only one eye witness PW.18 Sheobhag Keer in the present case, who was declared hostile. There was no other e...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The judgment dated 21.01.03 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.39/02 (36/02) State v. Dinesh and another whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under is in challenge in this appeal:- Appellant No.1 Dinesh 1.For offence 302 IPC – Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment 3 months further imprisonment. 2.For offence under section 324 - One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment 15 days further imprisonment. Appellant No.2 Mahesh 1.For offence under section 302/34 IPC - Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment further imprisonment of three months. 2.For offence under section 324/34 IPC - One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment further imprisonment of 15 days. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Mohan Lal, son of Gendaram, submitted written report Ext.P6 ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Harijan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that he is not challenging order of conviction of the appellant passed by the trial court in view of injury sustained by injured, Raju @ Rajendra, P.W. 9 on his chest by sharp edged weapon, proved by statement of P.W. 2 Dr. G.S. Vishnar and X-Ray Report, Exhibit P-1, but in view of the fact that during pendency of this appeal, injured Raju @ Rajendra has compromised the matter with the appellant. The compromise has been signed by injured, which has been attested by Notary Public, therefore, looking to special circumstances of the case, sentence of imprisonment of the appellant under Section 307 IPC be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him or to a reasonable period of imprisonment. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant in view of the fact that the appellant is not challenging his orde...
Tag this Judgment!Bano Vs. the Additional District Judge and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25.2.2008 whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur, allowed the application of defendants filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC of CPC with a cost of Rs. 500/-. 2. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that the defendants-respondents denied the pedigree as narrated in para no.1 of the suit. The defendants in their written statement, initially admitted the contents of para no.1 of the suit, but later-on, when they came to know that the contents, which were, in-fact, not to be admitted, but by way of typing error, the word “???” could not be scribbled before the word “???????”, they filed an application seeking only this much of amendment in the written statement. Since the amendment was sought at a belated stage, the learned trial court, albeit, allowed the amendment, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Rohitash Alias Titi and Another Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
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. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submitted that in view of overwhelming prosecution evidence available in the case against the petitioners, he is not challenging the order of conviction of the petitioners and his limited request is to reduce sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners under Section 327 IPC from 4 years' imprisonment to 3 years' imprisonment. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, in view of the fact that learned counsel for the petitioners is not challenging order of conviction of the petitioners, does not oppose his prayer seriously. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Radha Krishan Sharma lodged a written report against the petitioners in respect of incident dated 29.07.2009 about so-called illegal weekly demand and snatching of Rs. 9,200/- by the petitioners, after...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Alok Khare Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that on account of his ACR being adverse it has been considered to be a basis to defer his ACP for one year. 2. Counsel submits that at one stage the adverse remark which was recorded in his APAR for the year 2000-01 was challenged by filing appeal before the Tribunal but that was rejected on 18.05.2004 on the premise that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to examine adverse remarks recorded in his APAR obviously in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Tayyab Ali v. State of Raj., RLW 1988 (2) P.50. 3. Counsel further submits that when the minor penalty inflicted upon will not defer to grant selection scale then at least the adverse remark recorded cannot be looked into while being considered for grant of ACP which has been deferred under the present order impugned dt.22.10.2010. 4. Since adverse remarks recorded in his APARs has been taken note of while passing the order impugned dt.22.10.2010...
Tag this Judgment!Juhurudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. Petitioner/husband has preferred this revision petition challenging the order dated 27th November, 2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur Headquarter, Deeg in Criminal Revision Petition No.34/2008, whereby a revision petition filed by respondent No.2 was allowed and it was directed that respondent No.2 Mst.Sameena will be entitled to get maintenance from the date of application till 23rd September, 2001 @ Rs.500/- per month and from 24th September, 2001 onwards @ Rs.1,000/- per month. 3. There is a delay of 272 days in filing the revision petition, therefore, petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Petitioner has tried to explain the delay by mentioning that delay in filing the revision petition is not intentional and it is taken place due to reasons beyond the reasonable control of petitioner. 4. After considering the explanation furnished by petitioner, I am of the view that no ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Verma and Jai Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. Both the revision petitions are directed against common order dated 21st May, 2010 passed by trial court, therefore, the both were heard together and are being disposed off finally by this common order. 3. Petitioners have preferred this revision petitions against impugned order dated 21st May, 2010 passed by the trial court, whereby charges under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 120-B read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC have been ordered to be framed against them. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that there is no evidence against petitioners and trial court committed an illegality in framing charges against petitioners for the above offences, therefore, impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to see whether there is any prima facie mat...
Tag this Judgment!Sajawal Ahamad Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging impugned order dated 21.01.2010, passed by trial court, framing charge against him under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no evidence available on record, against the petitioner, except the statement of co-accused i.e. main accused Mahir Khan, which is not admissible in evidence, therefore, trial court committed an illegality in framing charge under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the petitioner. 4. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for framing charge against the petitioner. 5. It is relevant to mention that a charge against main accused, Mahir Khan has been ordered to be framed under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereas a charge under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act has been framed against the petitioner. Learned tr...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Sahaya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Although matter has come up for orders on application for suspension of sentence of the petitioner, but at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and the revision petition is being disposed off finally. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial court as well as appellate court both have concurrently recorded a finding that the petitioner is guilty of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and there is no illegality in the findings of both the courts below, therefore, he does not challenge the order of conviction of the petitioner passed by the trial court and affirmed by appellate court, but in view of the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise in matrimonial dispute and a consent petition was filed and a decree of divorce was passed on the basis of compromise, therefore, sentence of simple imprisonment of one year, awarded by the trial court for each offence, i.e. under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »