Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj990
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 10.7.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi whereby he was convicted for offence under Section 5 of the. Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment of five years with a fine of Rs. 500/- with the stipulation that in the event of default for making payment of fine, he shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. A first information report was lodged by one Bherulal, Constable with Police Station Bundi. In the report, it was alleged that on 11.7.1984 while the said Constable was on duty on the bus stand of Bundi at 8.30, pm the appellant was found with jute bag (Katta) near the bus which was going to Nainwa. On enquiry, he told his name to be Bheru Singh and when checked, the bag was found containing capsules of gelatin. Another Sipoy Shambu Kishore, also in the meantime approached there and both of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN95
B.J. Shethna, J.1. It is stated in this present petition by the petitioner that on 5.5.1999 when the van of respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand Jhanwar carrying explosive substance in a huge quantity being unloaded in 'Nohra' of respondent No.2, at that time due to explosion two persons, Bheru and Sattar Khan received serious injuries. Out of them Bheru later on sccumbed to the injuries. The information about this incident was received by Shahpura, Police Station and on receiving the said information,' ASI Aziz Mohd. reached the place of incident and lodged FIR No. 107/99 with Shahpura Police Station for the offences punishable Under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and also Under Sections 286, 337, 338 IPC. However, SHO Madan Dan Singh investigated the case and filed challan Under Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884 against respondents No.2 and 3 accused and also for the offence Under Sections 286, 337, 338 and 304A IPC Accordingly, the learned Trial Magistrate took co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3124
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, Major Jagmal Singh Yadav and Ram Balak Patel, against the order dated Feb. 6, 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 Deeg Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2008 whereby the trial court framed charges under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against them petitioner No. 1 is Proprietor of M/s. Jagmal Singh & Corporation and petitioner No. 2 is employee in the said firm. The said firm is a license holder firm bearing licence No. E/NC/HN/22/13 (E-10019) HN-159/E which was issued by the Chief Explosive Controller, Northern Region, Faridabad (Haryana) and is dealing in providing explosive for the use of mines in the country. For using explosive under the aforesaid license, the petitioner established site project office at village Luhesar, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur and sought permission to use explosive in the mines at Kaman by to Chief controller of Explosive. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2376; RLW2010(1)Raj449
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These four criminal appeals, on behalf of accused-appellants, and one criminal leave to appeal, on behalf of the State, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2000, passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Mansingh Death case), Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 8/98, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The trial Court, vide its impugned order, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:Accused Under ImprisonmentSection1. Abdul Mateen 14 of the To undergo 5 years RIForeigners and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;Act, 1946 in default, to furtherundergo 1 years' SI4 of PDPP To undergo 10 years RIAct and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI456 IPC To undergo 3 years RIand a fine of Rs. 3,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 6 months' SI307/120B To undergo 10 years' RIIPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI435/120B To undergo 7 years RIIPC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1956Raj153
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Allahnoor under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order to the District Magistrate of Chittorgarh, and arises in the following circumstances:2. The applicant is a person carrying on trade and business of manufacturing file-works, and sale or gun-powder at Nimbahera. In that connection, he applied to the District Magistrate of Chittorgarh for a no-objection certificate under Rule 85(3) of the Explosives Rules as he desired to obtain a license for 200 pounds of gun-powder from the Chief Inspector of Explosives. The District Magistrate, however, rejected the application without even looking at the site where the applicant proposed to carry on the business, and gave, no reasons to the applicant for such rejection.The applicant, therefore, has come up to this Court and his contention is that he is being deprived of his occupation, and thus his fundamental right granted under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution has been violat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992CriLJ955; 1992(1)WLC76; 1991(2)WLN212; 1991(2)WLN259
V.S. Dave, J.1. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that the order granting remand to judicial custody to accused SVS Kuldeep Jain, Meethalal and Khajulal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, be declared illegal and consequently the detention to be unlawful. They further prayed that they be directed to be released forthwith.2. The main ground of challenge is that mandatory provisions of Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. have been grossly violated and the order granting remand to judicial custody has been passed in the absence of any prayer by the police or production of the case diary. The petitioners' case is that the Station House Officer, Police Station Motidoongri, Jaipur submitted a written report at the said police station on 19-11-1990 on which F.I.R. No. 275/90 was registered against one Shri D.P. Gupta at whose residential place as well as business premises a search was carried out revealing a sizable stock of explosives. The case was registered fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(4)WLC605; 2000WLC(Raj)UC359
Madan, J. (1). The petitioner has challenged the impugned sentence on the ground only confined to its inadequacy in this revision petition, Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying therein for awarding deterrent sentence to the respondent (accused) Sangram Singh, who was convicted Under Sections. 457, 458, 323 & 324 IPC but sentenced to undergo four months simple imprisonment under each count and was imposed with fine of Rs. 200/- each Under Section 457 & -158 IPC, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui (District Dausa) under Judgment dated 4.7.96 in Criminal Case No. 215/96 arising out of FIR No. 173/95 lodged on 8.5.1995 at Police Station Bandikui by complainant (petitioner) herein. The accused-respondent Sangram Singh who at the time of incident was duly armed with axe is alleged to have intruded into complainant's house at about 1 O'clock in the midnight thereof, whereupon his mother and sister who were sleeping in the chowk got awaken, and res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2426
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner has raised questions of law in these revision petitions that (i) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case supply of explosives by the petitioner to his contractor for using the same by the contractor in petitioner's mining operation in mining area of the petitioner can be treated to be a sale within the meaning of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) and (ii) if answer to question No. (i) referred above is affirmative and it is held that aforesaid supply of explosives is a sale whether such sale is not taxable being subsequent sale within the State of the goods on which tax on first point has already paid and (iii) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the explosives for the purpose of blasting in the petitioner's mine could not have been purchased at concessional rates against declaration form ST17. -3The petitioner is a company duly registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(1)WLC425; 1994(2)WLN444
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed-off by a common order because a common point of law is involved therein.2. These revision petitions have been preferred against the orders dated 3.7.92 and 29.7.92 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar in Sessions Case No.41/90 'State v. Harish Chadra' and Session Case No. 21/92 'State v. Devi and Ors.' respectively whereby allowing the application filed on behalf of accused non- petitioner (s), the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused non-petitioner (s) of the offence Under Sections 5(1)(9)(b), Explosive Act, 1884 and Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive substances Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and dropped the trials against them for want of valid sanction for prosecution Under Sections 7 of the Act.3. Now briefly the facts. In Haraish Chandra's case the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Raj., Jaipur submitted the challan against the accused for the offence Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2009
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24-9-2000 whereby the State Government has withdrawn its earlier letter dated 28-10-1998 wherein the State had given the benefit of parole, Open Camp Jail and Remission to the prisoners convicted under NDPS Act and TADA Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dated 30-11-2002, the Judge, Designated Court, TADA, Ajmer had convicted the appellant under Section 6(1) of TADA under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 9-B(1) B and (vii) and under Section 9-C of the Explosive Act and had sentenced him for different terms of imprisonment, the maximum being 5 years of R.I. Till 16-7-2006, the petitioner has undergone an incarceration of 4 years and 23 days. According to the petitioner vide letter dated 28-10-1998, the benefit of remission, parole & Open Camp Jail was extended to prisoners convicted under NDPS Act and TADA Act. However, vide order dated 29-4-2000, the said letter was revoked. Hence the...
Tag this Judgment!