Rajasthan Court March 2012 Judgments

Krishan @ Karsan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Mathur, J. By the judgment impugned 21.8.2008 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi convicted the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence as under:- u/S.302 IPC – Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-. Further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. u/S.449 IPC – Ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-. Further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of this appeal is that on 1.4.2008 a written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kalandri by complainant Shri Oparam (PW-1) stating therein that in the morning of the same day at about 09:30 AM his real nephew Krishna son of Jagtaji came to him and after having certain usual domestic deliberations entered in the house of his another nephew Laxman. Afte...

Hemraj Jhajharia Vs. Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

This appeal has been preferred against the order of District Forum, Jhunjhunu dated 19.5.2010 by which the complaint was dismissed as presented before the period of limitation. The appellant had applied to the respondents for allotment of a house under MIG category in the year 1985. He presented a complaint against the respondents in the year 2010 that he was still not allotted a house. The respondents submitted that a house was reserved for the appellant and he was asked to deposit the seed money vide their letters dated 11.2.2000, 24.4.2001, 5.10.2001 and 15.10.2001 but the appellant did not deposit the seed money, hence his allotment was cancelled on 6.11.2001. The notice of cancellation was given to the appellant on 25.11.05 and refund of his registration money was sent to him vide their letter dated 21.12.09. As is apparant from the record, the respondents took four years to inform the appellant about cancellation of the registration and then took another four years in refunding t...

Shambhu Dayal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Others

Court: Rajasthan

Arun Mishra, CJ. 1. Reference has been made by the Single Bench on 8.11.2011 with respect to the grant of first regular parole to the petitioner Shambhu Dayal, who has been convicted for committing offence under section 8 read with section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lac. The question referred by the Single Bench is to the effect whether the order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the Single Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.5711/2011 is the obtaining law or whether a convict after having undergone the statutory period of sentence is entitled to be considered for parole both regular and permanent without the question of payment of fine being reckoned. 2. When the arguments on the aforesaid question were being heard by the Division Bench, it was considered necessary to consider the aspect whether in the cases where convict...

Charmesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2115

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1674 of 2011 under section 482 Cr.P.c. against the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Bundi in Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2010 against the order dated 7.8.2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed in Complaint No. 249 of 2010 was confirmed and the revision petition was rejected. REPORTABLE BY THE COURT : 1. This criminal misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.c. against the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Bundi in Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2010 against the order dated 7.8.2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed in Complaint No. 249 of 2010 was confirmed and the revision petition was rejected. 2. Brief facts of this criminal misc. petition are that a complaint was filed against the respondent No.2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi for the offence under sections 500 and 504 IPC. It was stated in the complaint that the non-petitioner No.2 used t...

M/S. Grinding Mills and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another

Court: Rajasthan

Heard on the question of admission. Petitioners have questioned vires of Rule 5(6) of the Rajasthan Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transpiration and Storage) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2007'). Petitioners have submitted that petitioners are Small Scale Industries dealing in processing of minerals in Industrial Area/RIICO Area or Trading of minerals at Beawar, District Ajmer. Petitioners are registered as SSI Units with the District Industries Centre, Ajmer/Beawar. Petitioners purchased raw mineral from mining operators, who have been granted lease's of mines. The raw minerals felspar, quartz and other mineral are supplied / sold to the petitioners along with 'Rawanna' i.e. a form of permit certifying the mineral taken out from the mines leased by the Department of Mines and Geology and payment of royalty on the mineral. In turn, the raw mineral felspar, quartz and other mineral are processed/converted into powder by grinding and supplied/sold in the ...

M/S. Vikas Book Ltd and Others Vs. Bank of Baroda, Nehru Place, Jaipur ...

Court: Rajasthan

1. These three petitions were connected with the S.B.C.W.P. 999/2011, as per the orders passed by the co-ordinate bench and therefore were heard together. However, during the course of arguments, it had transpired that the parties and proceedings of Petition No. 999/2003 were different from the present ones and, therefore, the said petition is being disposed of by separate order. In the present three petitions, the petitioners are different, however, the respondent bank in the capacity of a mortgagee, is the same, and the other respondents are the mortgagors/guarantors who had mortgaged the properties in question by way of security in respect of the credit facilities availed of by one M/S Vipul Gems. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. At the out-set, it may be stated that though the subject matter and the parties in S.B.C.W.P. 999/2011 were different, the S.B.C.W.P. 1928/2011 was directed to be connected with the Petition No. 999/2011 at the request of learned counsel...

Banwarilal Vs. Datturam Through Lrs.

Court: Rajasthan

1. The petitioner (Plaintiff) has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jhunjhunu, in Civil Suit No.35 of 2005, whereby his application filed under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to draw presumption against a patta of 4.10.1948 on the ground of it being more than 30 years old, had been rejected. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Plaintiff filed a suit through his registered Attorney Mohan Lal, seeking declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendant. The Plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he had purchased a plot admeasuring 471.6 sq.yrd. by way of registered sale-deed on 19.9.1984. The dimensions and surroundings whereof were mentioned in para Nos.1 and 4 of the plaint. His case was that he left 12 ft. land for Mata Mandir and the remaining land he divided in two plots of 54x30 sq.ft and 54x24.4 sq.ft., and the plot admeasu...