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.
Abdul Farid Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging order dated 05.11.2008 passed by trial court, framing charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that trial court committed an illegality in framing the charges for the above-mentioned offences against the petitioner, without any material available on record. 4. I have considered submission of learned counsel for the parties. 5. A copy of charge sheet has also been placed on record, from which it is clear that all the relevant facts have been mentioned by the trial court, while framing charge against the petitioner. No illegality or perversity has been pointed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the charges framed against the petitioner for the above-mentioned offences. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari & Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 57, while interpre...
Nathu Ram at Sita Ram and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by trial court, whereby trial court has passed an order to frame charge against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and in alternative under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the evidence available on record, it was a case of suicide and not a case of murder or dowry death, therefore, trial court committed an illegality in passing impugned order. A copy of charge sheet has been placed on record. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed revision petition and submitted that although there is sufficient evidence available on record to substantiate the charge framed by trial court, but even if submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is taken into consideration, then the same has no force, as Hon'ble Apex Court in number of cases has taken a view that even s...
Savita Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily with the grievance that the post (Junior Environment Engineer) for which she intended to appear pursuant to advertisement no.3/2010 (Annx.1) but because of human error she mentioned the post Junior Scientific Officer and because of error being committed her form was rejected by the respondent, which has compelled her to approach this Court by filing the instant petition. 2. It is a matter of record that exparte order was passed by this Court on 09.09.2010 directing the respondent to allow her to appear in the written examination held for the post of Junior Environment Engineer on 12.09.2010 and when the result thereof was perused by the Court it revealed that petitioner has qualified for interview and as such by further interim order dt.20.11.2010 this Court directed the respondent to allow her to appear in the interview provisionally for the post of Junior Environment Engineer against OBC quota which was held on 23.11.2010...
Rahul and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. Petitioners were convicted by the trial Court under Sections 9, 17, 27, 29, 31 32 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 to a imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred. It was argued before the First Appellate Court that they could not cross examine the complainant PW5, therefore, an opportunity may be granted to them to cross examine PW5 Ramakant, the complainant, and matter may be remanded back. 2. The Appellate Court, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for accused, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court for affording an opportunity to accused-persons to cross examine PW5 Ramakant, the complainant. Being aggrieved with the order of the Appellate Court dated 24.06.2006, the present revision petition was preferred before this Court on 05.10.2006. 3. Registry pointed out that revision petition is barred by limitation and no application under Section 5 of th...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Prem Singh.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and after considering her submissions and for the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned. 2. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the application for leave to appeal. 4. This leave to appeal has been preferred against impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Virat Nagar, District Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 38/2005 whereby accused-respondent has been acquitted from offences under Section 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for acquittal of the accused-respondent. 6. The case of accused was that he was not driving the disputed vehicle and challan has been filed only on the basis of notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Learne...
Smt. Janki Devi and Another Vs. Additional Collector, Behror and Other ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the judgments dated 7.11.2005 (Annexure-1), 24.12.2008 (Annexure-2) and 8.7.2009 (Annexure-3) rendered by the revenue courts below, which have been beseeched to be set-aside by the petitioners. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the impugned orders of the courts below. 3. The only crucial question emerging for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether a suit for mere declaration is maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession of the property? 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the respondent no.4 was not in possession of the land-in-question and he filed merely a suit for declaration before the Court of Assistant Collector, Behror and despite that the learned Assistant Collector decreed the suit in favour of the respondent no.4. The petitioners being aggrieved with the said judgment, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, who also dismissed the appe...
Smt. Neelam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, whereby application of appellant under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was directed to be disposed off along with original criminal appeal, filed by appellant. 3. It appears that a criminal complaint was filed against the appellant by respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and after completion of trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No.16, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Complaint No.917/2001 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to one year's simple imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. Five lacs. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was...
Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Alwar Vs. Ms Kamdhenu Spat Ltd. and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 06.07.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby petitioner's appeal has been dismissed. 3. Assessing Officer vide its order dated 09.07.2002, levied penalty under Section 78(10)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, but on an appeal filed by Assessee, the same was set aside. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Rajasthan Tax Board, but the same was also dismissed. 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 since seal of check post of Commercial Taxes Department of the State of Rajasthan was not there on the documents, therefore, there was no illegality in levying the penalty by the assessing officer. He, therefore, contended that orders passed by both the appella...
Man Singh and Ravi Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant and perused material made available to me during course of arguments. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners have been falsely implicated in present case inasmuch as main allegation of snatching money and mobile is against co-accused Rahul, whose name is there in the FIR whereas petitioners' names are not there in the FIR. Complainant appeared before the trial court and has stated that petitioners were not involved in the incident. It is argued that petitioners are in jail for last about 15 days and that this is their first offence and that they would not indulge themselves in any such or other offence in future. Investigation may take a long. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant opposed the bail application. However, learned counsel for complainant also submits that the petitioners were not named by the complain...
Prem Chand at Praveen Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Pros ...
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 peitioner is that this is the first offence alleged against petitioner and that no case is previously registered against him. Co-accused Jayant Bhardwaj has already been granted benefit of bail by this court vide order dated 05.07.2011 in Bail Application No.6424/2011. Petitioner would undertake not to indulge in any such or other offence 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, Prem Chand @ Praveen Kumar Son of Shri Somnath, Resident of Village Tharali, Police Station Tharali, District Chamboli (Uttarkhand) (presently confined in Central...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »