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.
NaraIn Das Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment and order dated 20th August, 2002 passed by Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots Man Singh Hatya Kand), Jaipur in criminal appeal No.70/01, whereby appellate court, while maintaining the order of conviction passed by trial court under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Custom Act, 1962, reduced the sentence from six months rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional one month imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction of the petitioner in view of concurrent finding of facts about commitment of offence and prayed that the incident took place in the year 1991, it is 20 years old matter. Petitioner has already remained in jail for about 34 days, therefore, sentence of thr...
Jaikishan Khandelwal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the petitioners have been directed to be summoned by the order of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) No.2, Bharatpur dated 19.04.2007 for the offences under Section 302 and 120B IPC and that the learned Magistrate while summoning the petitioners has issued warrant of arrest. 2. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. [JT 2007 (11) 499], it was not permissible to the Magistrate to have issue warrant of arrest in the first instance. The Magistrate should have initially directed the summoning of the petitioner by issuance of summons. If the summons were served and the petitioner did not appear then bailable warrant should have been issued and in the eventuality of the bailable warrant being disobeyed, then only warrant of arrest could have been issued. 3. Per contra, the learned Public prosecutor has opposed th...
Ram Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Although matter is listed for orders on second application for suspension of sentence of the appellant, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for both the parties prayed that final arguments may be heard and appeal itself be disposed off. 3. At the request of parties, arguments were heard and appeal is being disposed off finally. 4. Appellant Ram Prasad S/o. Moolya @ Mool Chand has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against impugned judgment and order dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 42/05, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused- appellant Under Section Sentence Ram Prasad 376 IPC To undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' additional simple imprisonment. 457 IPC To undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fin...
Nahar Singh at Pappu and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Three appellants, namely, Nahar Singh @ Pappu S/o Bharat Lal, Halkey S/o Heera Lal (now died) and Hariman @ Bablu S/o Halkey, have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2006 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindauncity, District Karauli in Sessions Case No.6/2004(77/2003), whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section Sentence 148 IPC To undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' imprisonment. 324/149 IPC To undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' additional imprisonment. 326/149 IPC To undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' additional imprisonment. 307/149 IPC To u...
Pappu at Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the impugned judgment and order dated 7th February, 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity, whereby appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and while maintaining the order of his conviction dated 17th August, 1999 passed by trial court, reduced his sentence of imprisonment under Section 456 IPC from two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner does not press the conviction of petitioner in view of concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below and prayed that petitioner has already remained in jail for 24 days, the incident in the present case took place in the year 1994, therefore, his period of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of i...
Arjun Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by trial court, whereby it was ordered that a charge under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. be framed against the petitioner. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is not challenging the order framing charge under Section 201 I.P.C., but according to him, there is no evidence to connect the accused-petitioner with the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., therefore, order framing charge against the petitioner under Section 302 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that soon after arrest of the petitioner, he gave an information, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, about knife and mobile used by co-accused Harish and the same were recovered in pursuance of information given by present petitioner Arjun, therefore, it was contended that there is prima-facie evidence to proceed against...
Smt. Santo Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Complainant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the impugned order dated 16.05.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No.1, Alwar, whereby her application to frame charge against accused persons under Section 325 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act, has been dismissed. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and examined the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the application of petitioner. 4. The trial Court has observed that charges against accused persons for the offences under Sections 148, 323 or 323/149, 324 or 324/149, 326 or 326/149, 307 or 307/149, 302 or 302/149 IPC have already been framed, the prosecution has already examined 15 witnesses in the case, a charge under Section 307, 307/149 IPC has already been framed for injury sustained by injured Sibba, whereas offence under Section 325 IPC is a lesser offence, therefore, there is no need to frame addi...
Omprakash Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Accused-Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging impugned order dated 07.07.2010, whereby his application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge framed against him was dismissed. 3. Learned trial court, while dismissing the application, has observed that a detailed order was passed on 20.07.2009, whereby charge was ordered to be framed. It is relevant to mention that order dated 20.07.2009, farming charge, was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1330/2009, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. in the trial court, therefore, the petitioner moved an application in the trial court under Section Section 216 Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed vide impugned order. 4. Learned trial court has referred the injury sustained by injured, i.e. on chest-left side, by knife, therefore, tri...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Modi Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. District Collector, Bharatpur vide its order dated 13.07.2009, allowed the application of Enforcement Inspector under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the E.C. Act') and passed an order of confiscation of 3000 litres of diesel. 3. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred, which was allowed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur vide order dated 15.09.2009, which is under challenge in this revision petition, preferred on behalf of the State. 4. Appellate Court considered the matter in detail and observed that a case under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act was registered at Police Station Chiksana alleging that 3000 letres of kerosene was found in vehicle in dispute, but when a sample was sent and report came, then it was reported that it is diesel and not kerosene. During investigation, police came to a conclusion that case has wrongly been registered and ultimately Final Repo...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra at Raju.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. Defect is over-ruled. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission of revision petition. 3. This revision petition is directed against impugned order dated 29.03.2010 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 23/2009, whereby learned trial court discharged the accused-respondent from offence under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act. 4. &nbs...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »