Rajasthan Court July 2011 Judgments
Mangi Lal Mahavar Vs. Meena Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. The matter was listed yesterday, but none-appeared on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, case was kept for today. Today also, no one is present on behalf of petitioner. 2. I have examined the matter. The non-petitioner Meena Kumari filed an application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of the amount of maintenance for herself and her children. Learned Judge of the Family Court, Kota vide its order dated 18th March, 2006 allowed the application and enhanced the amount of maintenance for non-petitioner from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- per month and for her children Naveen, Aakash and Deepika from Rs.400/- to Rs.600/- per children total amount of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of application dated 16.10.2002. Being aggrieved with the order of family court dated 18th March, 2006, the husband-petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. There is a delay of 19 days in filing the petition, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Manoj Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This leave to appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal of accused-respondent of charge under Sections 376, 457 IPC by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar vide its judgment dated 21.05.2008. 3. Learned trial Court, in para 10 of the impugned judgment, has discussed the entire relevant evidence including the statement of PW1 Dayawati, the prosecutrix, and Exhibit-D2, a letter written by prosecutrix Dayawati to accused Manoj Kumar. The contents of letter have also been reproduced. Learned trial Court has also observed that she (prosecutrix) was having two children of age of 4 and 8 years. After referring the entire prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court recorded a finding that it is a case of consent and not forceful sexual intercourse. 4. Learned counsel for appellant has unable to point out any discrepancy in the order passed by the trial court so as to interfere with the same, particularly in view o...
Tag this Judgment!Rampal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. The aforesaid petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.07.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Chomu, Distt. Jaipur, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 2. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that two witnesses, namely Satpal (PW-5) and Sarwan Lal (PW-15) were to be cross-examined by the Senior Advocate, but since the counsel for the applicant was busy in some other court at Jaipur, he could not go to Chomu for cross-examining the witnesses and as such, the cross-examination was closed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved by the closure of the cross-examination, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed. It has been submitted that the prosecution also filed similar applications which have been allowed by the learned Trial Judge by his order dated 02.07.2011 itself. Therefore, as per the counsel for the petitioners, the approach of the learned Trial Judge is arbitrary. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the SHO Police Station Dantaramgarh filed a criminal complaint under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate Sikar against party No.1 / petitioner and party No.2/respondents in respect of disputed piece of land. It was alleged in the complaint that 1/4 of disputed land has been purchased by party No.1 and party No.1 is recorded tenant of it. Remaining 3/4 land is in possession of party No.2. Since, there is chances of breach of peace, therefore, the land be attached and Receiver be appointed. 3. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikar vide its order dated 16th October, 2000 appointed a Receiver, while exercising its powers under Section 146 CrPC over 1/4 of land, which was in dispute and appointed Tehsildar Dantaramgarh as Receiver over it with a direction to take the said land in possession. 4. Being aggrieved with the above order dated 16th October, 20...
Tag this Judgment!Tarendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. Since all these petitions are related to the same incident, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Mr. S.S. Hora, counsel for the petitioner, after arguing some time has submitted before this Court that in almost an identical FIR, being FIR No.1/1997, registered at Police Station Bhanwargarh Distt. Baran, the investigation resulted into a F.R. whereupon cognizance was taken against the transporter for offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC. The order taking cognizance was challenged by accused, Jagdish Prasad Bansal (the transporter) before this Court by way of a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.305/2005. 3. As per Mr. Hora, the factual aspects of the present cases are exactly identical to the above referred case. He further submits that the above referred case also relates to the delivery of food grain under the Poshahar Scheme and the contract of the said case is also identical to the present cases. As per Mr. Hora, when...
Tag this Judgment!Himmat Singh Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order inflicting penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension vide order dt.16.05.2008. However, at one stage, the petitioner approached to this Court by filing CWP-5467/2008 which was dismissed on availability of alternative remedy of review u/R.34 of the CCA Rules,1958 vide order dt.18.03.2009 and review petition preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by passing a detailed speaking order dt.21.04.2011 (Annx.6). 2. The petitioner who was a member of Class-IV at the relevant point of time working as Jamadar at His Excellency the Governor household, Governor House, Jaipur. It will be relevant to take note of the allegations levelled against the petitioner served along with memorandum u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 dt.26.11.2007 (Annx.1) which is reproduced here-as-under. 3. However, enquiry was held by the disciplinary authority in which charges were found proved against him and prime allegation was tha...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Suresh Gupta and Another Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the appeals are directed against common judgment and order passed by trial court, therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 3. S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1851/2007, on behalf of two appellants namely Dr. Suresh Gupta and Kumari Seema Sayyed and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1855/2007, on behalf of the appellant Dr. Basant Fadiya are directed against impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 117/2001, whereby all three appellants named above have been convicted and sentenced as under:- (i) Under Section 326 IPC: To undergo two years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment. (ii) Under Section 324 IPC: To undergo six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00/-, in default of payment of fine to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for appellant. 2. Complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 29th April, 2011 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran in Criminal Appeal No.163/2009, whereby while upholding the conviction of accused respondent No.2 Abdul Gafoor passed by trial court under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, instead of awarding the sentence of imprisonment, granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that accused respondent No.2 was convicted and sentenced under Section 323 IPC to three months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 325 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment by the trial court and learned appellate court also upheld his conviction, but instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment, wrongly granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, therefore, order of the appellate court granting probation to responde...
Tag this Judgment!State of Raj. and anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Instant petition is directed against the Award passed by the Labour Court dt.02.07.2008 by which the reference made by the Appropriate Government was answered in affirmative. 2. It was alleged by the respondent-workman in his claim application that he was appointed on daily wages basis on 01.06.1987 and worked upto 01.09.1993 and without any notice or salary in lieu thereof, in breach of Sec.25-F & H of the Act his services were terminated and when he was not allowed to join duties reference was made by the Appropriate Government vide its notification dt.07.04.1997 which came up for adjudication before the learned Labour Court and after affording opportunity of hearing to the respective parties the learned Labour Court recorded finding that he had worked from June,1987 to 30.08.1993 and without giving any notice or one month salary in lieu thereof and compensation which are pre-requisite condition u/S.25F of the Act,1947 the action of the authority was in violation of Sec.25F of...
Tag this Judgment!Vihari Sharan Kaushik and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. It is unfortunate that present petitioners have been dragged to file the present writ petition with the relief which was otherwise expected from the respondents to grant at their own end. 2. The writ petitioners earlier approached to this Court by filing CWP-498/2005 with the grievance that first year examination of Live Stock Assistant was not held by the respondent to which they were under an obligation to hold and obviously in absence of the petitioners qualify the examination to be held for the post of Live Stock Assistant they were deprived from participating in the recruitment held for the post of Live Stock Assistant. The writ petition (CWP-498/05) preferred by the petitioners was allowed by the Court vide judgment dt.19.08.2009 and this Court directed the respondent to declare result of first year examination of the members of the association and they should also hold second year examination of such students who have qualified first year examination and it was further ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »