Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN88
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner-convicted prisoner under the T.A.D.A. Act-sought his release on parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Rules of 1958' for short). But, the same has been denied to him. Hence this petition before this Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dt. 30.11.2002 the Judge, Designated Court, T.A.D.A., Ajmer had convicted the appellant under Section 6(1) of T.A.D.A., 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 16.07.2006, the petitioner has undergone an incarceration of 4 years and 23 days. According to the petitioner vide letter dt. 28.10.1998, the benefit of Remission, Parole and Open Camp Jail was extended to prisoners convicted under N.D.P.S. Act and T.A.D.A. Act. However, vide order dt. 29.04....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj2973
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 23.05.1987 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby he convicted accused-appellant in the offence under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal succinctly are thus:On 27th January, 1985 at about 8.00 a.m. when P.W. 8, Shri Mahesh Chand Dubey, S.H.O. Police Station Khairthal, restrict Alwar was coming back after conducting an investigation in case no. 11 registered in the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 406 of Indian Penal Code, received an information from an informer that one Rohtash son of Badri Prasad resident of Khairthal, Alwar was manufacturing gun powder. Having received this informatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992CriLJ723; 1991(2)WLC421; 1991(2)WLN165
ORDERR.S. Verma, J.1. These two petitions Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. raise identical questions of law and facts. Hence, they have been heard together and are being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself by common consent.2. In S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 228 of 1991 petitioners Raju and others are the registered owners of tractor No. HMT 3511 and they also own the compressor attached with this tractor. In S. B Criminal Misc. Petition No. 232 of 1991 petitioner Bhanwar Singh is the registered owner of Tractor RNE 8914. He also owns the compressor attached to this tractor. On 24-4-1991 both these tractors were found carrying explosives without any licence and hence were seized by Shri Mahendra Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahpura. At the time of seizures Tractor HMT 3511 was found in possession of Ramlal s/o Raju and Kalu s/ o Kana, while Tractor RNE 8914 was found in possession of one Mukut Singh, who is real brother of Bhanwar Singh. In connection with trac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997ACJ304; AIR1996Raj126; 1996(1)WLN152
Arun Madan, J.1. The appellant-InsuranceCompany has preferred this appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), againstthe Award, dated 29th January, 1994, passedby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrodin Civil Miscellaneous (MAC) Case No. 130/92 (34/90) whereby an Award of Rupees5,96,000/- was passed in favour of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Aggrieved by the saidAward the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that on 30th September, 1989 at about 7.00 p.m. late Pareesh Marya was driving his Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DAJ 3013 on Behrod-Sahjahanpur road. A Truck bearing Registration No. DIG 3144 was parked in a stationary position on the national highway near Behrod 1 km. ahead of Neemrana turn. Instead of parking the truck on the footpath its driver had parked the same on the road. Since the parking lights of the truck were not on at that time and also on account of darkness the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj397
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The State of Rajasthan has come up in writ petition against the order dated 27.6.1998 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in an appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') thereby reversing the order dated 24.11.1997 passed by the District Collector under Section 6A of the said Act confiscating 240 Gas Cylinders.3. Factual matrix of the case is that the District Supply Officer received certain complaints against M/s. Tej Enterprises, having retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) for distribution of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) in the allotted area. These complaints were with regard to the black marketing of gas cylinders and quantity of gas contained in the gas cylinders being lesser than the prescribed quantity is in violation of conditions of the license and the provisions of the Rajasthan Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj648; [2004]137STC326(Raj); 2003(2)WLC398; 2003(1)WLN462
Calla, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the order dated 24th Nov., 2001 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of assessment in the matter of Sales Tax has been dismissed as not maintainable by the learned Single Judge on the ground that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. The parties are not at dispute that the remedy under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is there so as to challenge the order passed by the Assessing Officer against the order of assessment.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the remedy of the appeal as aforesaid is coupled with an onerous condition of depositing the amount as assessed by the Assessing Officer under the Sales Tax Act and, therefore, unless the due amount is deposited, the appeal cannot be entertained. It is also the case of the appellant that he is not in a position even t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2952; 1994(1)WLN348
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These two jail appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 26-8-1985, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has held the accused appellant Ghewaria guilty of the offences Under Section 302, I.P.C. and Under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and accused appellant Lakha Singh guilty of the offences Under Section 302/34 IPC and Under Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused-appellant Ghewaria has been sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine', to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence Under Section 302, IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisoment for three months for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the accused appellant Lakha sing has been sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7103/2014 Ramesh Chandra Lohiya V/s. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order ::: 16.10.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.N.K.Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this matter is very short, and therefore, with the consent of the rival parties matter is heard finally at this stage. By the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 30th September, 2014 (Annex.3) passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby his licence for sale of explosives bearing No.10/2007 is suspended. The Police Commissioner, while passing the order impugned, has observed that two cases under Sections 5/9B(1)(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, 2 Act of 1884) and Section 286 of the Indian Penal Code are pending against the petitioner. From the recitals of the order, it is borne out that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7112/2014 Tahir Ali Ansari V/s. State of Rajasthan & ORS.Date of Order ::: 16.10.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.N.K.Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this matter is very short, and therefore, with the consent of the rival parties matter is heard finally at this stage. By the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 14th August, 2014 (Annex.3) passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby his licence for sale of explosives bearing No.02/2005 is suspended. The Police Commissioner, while passing the order impugned, has observed that a case under Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, Act of 1884) and Sections 286, 336 of the Indian Penal Code is pending 2 against the petitioner. The suspension of licence was assailed by the petitioner before the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7098/2014 Satyanarayan V/s. State of Rajasthan & anr. Date of Order ::: 16.10.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.N.K.Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this matter is very short, and therefore, with the consent of the rival parties matter is heard finally at this stage. By the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 30th September, 2014 (Annex.3) passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby his licence for sale of explosives bearing No.38/1993 is suspended. The Police Commissioner, while passing the order impugned, has observed that a case under Sections 5, 9B(i) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, Act of 1884) and Section 286 of the Indian Penal Code is pending against 2 the petitioner. From the recitals of the order, it is borne out that the Commissioner,...
Tag this Judgment!