Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(2)WLC287; 1996(2)WLN276
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The story of the case relates to the life of Mst. Suman Kanwar and Vinod Kumar Dhobi who liked to each other. But to their misfortune they belong to different castes and perhaps this is the root cause of their trouble. Mst. Suman Kanwar belongs to the family of Rajput, an upper caste in the society, while Vinod Kumar is Dhobi of lower caste. There is no gain saying that in our society caste still plays a significant role in human relationship and behaviour. These petitions disclose a sordid and disturbing state of affairs that such things should happen in their lives.2. The Habeas Corpus Petition was filed before this Court on 16th April, 1996 and on the same day, Shri S.R. Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor accepted notices of the respondents. He was directed to seek instructions on telephone and file reply to the writ petition by 18th April. On 18th, reply was filed and the petition was adjourned for the next day. On 19th April, direction to produce Suman Kanwar on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(1)WLN312
A.K. Singh, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 6.3.1986 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Revision Petition No. 45/1985. It appears that Criminal Revision Petition No. 45/1985: Parveen Kumar and Anr. v. Paras Ram was filed against the order dated 7.6.1985 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. in Criminal Case No. 105/1985 ; Paras Ram v. Parveen Kumar and Ors. By the impugned order dated 7.6.1985 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioners under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in a case instituted on a complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 330 and 342 I.P.C.2. The facts of the case may be summarised as under-On 7.10.1984 non-petitioner No. 2 Paras Ram lodged a first information report at the Police Station, Rajsamand. In that report he alleged that on 5.10.1984 when ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ3186; 1996(3)WLC247; 1996(1)WLN326
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 6-11-1995 passed by learned Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Act cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 94/95 whereby he convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 8/18 of the N. D. P. S. Act and sentenced him with ten years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years R. I.2. The brief facts leading up to this appeal briefly stated are that on May 19th, 1995 at about 7.40 p.m. Parbat Singh, S. H. O., P. S. Hathi Pole, Udaipur received a credible information that the appellant possessed opium and would be available at Mohta Park. Having received the aforesaid credible information P. W. 5 Parbat Singh recorded aforesaid information in Rojnamchaat 7.40 p.m. and proceeded alongwith A. S. I. Vikram Singh P. W. 1, A. S. I. Shakti Singh P. W. 2, Head Constable Shyam Lai P. W. 6 and Constable Bhagwat Singh, Ravindra Singh, Bhanwarlal Gopal Lal and two motbir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1996)133CTR(Raj)379; [1997]227ITR7(Raj); 1996(1)WLN374
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87, referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in directing to allow 50 per cent, deduction of incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India relying on Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT (A-I), dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to the Life Insurance Corporation agent and not to the Development Officer. The cases of the Development Officer are governed by the Board's Circular F. No. 200/127/ 84-IT (A), dated September 29, 1987/ October 14, 1987 ?'2. The assessee was working as the Development Officer with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87, the assessee receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ3176; 1996(2)WLC684; 1996(1)WLN132
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. This is third bail application moved on behalf of applicant Ruldu Singh. His first bail application was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 11-7-95 with a direction to the learned trial Judge to expedite the disposal of the case.2. Second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 8-11-95 on a positive suggestion to the effect that alomost all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined long back by the learned trial court, therefore, the trial itself is likely to be disposed of in a shortest possible time. The aforesaid suggestion was accepted by the learned counsel for the applicant and he did not press his second bail application which was rejected on the aforesaid date as not pressed.3. The accused applicant, who is languishing in jail for more than 34 months; questions delaying tactics being adopted in disposal of his trial by moving this third bail application.4. In support of third bail application the learned c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(3)WLC339; 1996(1)WLN370
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant Misc. Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.3.96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh arising out of Final Report No. 8/95 submitted by Police Station, Sandwa and subsequently the same final report was registered as Complaint Case No. 129/95 Budha Ram v. Shanker Lal relating to the offences under Section 354, IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/S (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that since summoning of the accused or taking of a cognizance is an interlocutory order, therefore, neither revision lies nor proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be initiated.3. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is mis-conceived, inasmuch as, the phraseology of Sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. and Section 482, Cr. P.C. enjoin that although against the Interlocutory order, no revision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ1075Raj; 1996(2)WLC396
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order terminating his service and the Validity of condition No. 16 contained in the appointment letter dated, October 15, 1984, which is stated by the respondent company (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Management') to be the contract of employment.The vital question for consideration in this petition, therefore, is --Whether condition No. 16 of the letter of appointment dated, October 15, 1984, empowering the management to terminate services of an employee without assigning any reason by mere giving one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice, is arbitrary, unreasonable and constitutionally invalid?2. The necessary facts of the case for decision of the writ petition are in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined service of the respondent M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. as Clerk in the year 1963, since then, except for a short break of few days, he contin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(2)WLC405; 1996(1)WLN138
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. This is second bail application. First bail application was rejected on 13.11.95 as not pressed for the reason that challan and F.S.L. report were not available to the accused applicant at that stage.3. Perused the copy of charge-sheet furnished to accused applicant under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'N.D.P.S. Act') for clutivating cannabis plants of 'Ganja'.4. It is true that the cannabis plant and cannabis (Hemp) are two different contrabands under N.D.P.S. Act. Cannabis (Hemp) is defined under Section 2(iii) of the said Act which includes Charas and Ganja and also any mixture with or without any neutral material of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom.5. Charas is defined under Section 2(iii)(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act which means separated resin in whatever form whether crude or purified obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996(3)WLC303; 1996(1)WLN563
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition for habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner, Suresh Kumar Yadav, alleging illegal detention and confinement of the detenue, Anuradha, by the respondents herein, who are the parents of detenue on the averments that the petitioner and the detenue Anuradha had developed liking for each other and wanted to marry to lead their life together. This enraged the parents of Anuradha and therefore, they pressurised and tortured her so that she could give up her determination to marry the petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner that the girl's parents, who are respondents No. 1 and 2 here in, were secretly making arrangements to marry the detenue with another person against her wishes. It was, therefore, prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the girl with the direction to allow her to go and live as per her choice and wish.2. It is quite obvious from the facts stated hereinbefore that the petitioner, prima facie, failed to m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(1997)DMC34
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), the judgment and order dated, September 28,1995. of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, in Criminal Revision No. 27/92 confirming the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, dated January 4, 1992 is being challenged by the petitioners.2. A Criminal case being F.I.R. No. 60/89, was registered at Police Station, Manawa Under Section. 498A and 304B, I.P.C. The investigation in the matter was made by several Investigating Officers and finally, a negative report, which is popularly known as Final Report (F.R.) was submitted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. A protest petition was filed by the complainant challenging the -findings of the Investigating Agency. The learned Magistrate, after considering the entire material on record and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, took cognizance against non-petitioner-Habra Mal onl...
Tag this Judgment!