Court : Rajasthan
1. This criminal appeal under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been filed against the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the application (No.47/2011) for bail filed by the accused-appellant had been rejected. 2. The prosecution case was initiated on lodging of a First Information Report (No.85/2007), at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer for the offences under Section 302, 307, 323 and 295 IPC and also under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act. Thereafter, during the pendency of the investigation, which commenced after lodging of the said report, the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency, New Delhi by Government of India, vide order dated 01.04.2011. Therefore, the investigation in the present matter was conducted by the Agency from 06.04.2011 onwards and an F.I.R. (No.4/2011) came to be registered by the National Investigation Agency. 3. Later on an application for grant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC30; 1995(2)WLN131
B.R. Arora, J.1. These Special Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 20-3-95, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner-appellants, were dismissed and the appellants were directed to surrender before the Designated Court, Ajmer, on or before 28-3-95. Since all theses appeals arise out of the same judgment and involve identical controversies, we, therefore, think it proper to decide all these Special Appeals by this common judgment.2. F.I.R. No. 77/93 Under Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered against one Poonam Chand Bishnoi at Police Station, Bajju (District Bikaner). During the investigation in this F.I.R., two bages full of arms and ammunition were recovered from the Dhani of Poonam Chand Bishnoi. On interrogation, it was revealed that Poonam Chand Bishnoi was engaged in the activities of smuggling arms and ammunitions from Pakistan through the border district of Bikaner in the State of Rajasthan and was supplyin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2(1986)ACC559
G.M. Lodha, Acting C.J.1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalal, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation Bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.2. The socio-economic pragmatic approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grand ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-thesi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1987Raj68; 1986(2)WLN632
G.M. Lodha, Actg. C.J.1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalat, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took i place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a Public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.2. The socio-economic pragmatic -approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grant ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2295; 2005(4)WLC134
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner married with one Sharda Devi on 16th May, 1987 as per Hindu Rites. Out of the wedlock, a daughter Seemaborn to the petitioner. The petitioner's wife Sharda Devi died on 11th May, 1993. The petitioner, thereafter, married to one Indra on 13th May, 1994. Out of this wedlock, two sons born to the petitioner. Smt. Indra died on 16th Oct. 1997. Therefore, by two marriage, the petitioner got three children. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the death of second wife of the petitioner, the petitioner contracted third marriage but there is no child from that wedlock.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner as per Sub- clause (1) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1994), a person, who has more than two children and with a birth of any child after 27th Nov., 1995 is a disqua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Raj)244
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in IT Appeal No. 455/2000. The appellant assessee was a consignment agent for supply of explosive goods to I.C.I. India Limited in Rajasthan. In view of the information received, a survey under Section 133A was carried out in the case of Pooja Roadlines, Udaipur and some bill books were impounded under Section 131 of the Act. On scrutiny of the bill books of M/s Pooja Roadlines, it was noticed that the vans (motor vehicles) owned by the assessee had been used for transportation of goods to various places. On examination, it was found that the assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s India Explosives Ltd. for supplying trading items of the principal company at Udaipur. The vans owned by the assessee were used for getting goods from Udaipur to Gomia in Bihar. The vans so used for delivering goods were to be unloaded at Udaipur and empty vans we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj78; 1984()WLN116
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. (petitioner 1 herein) is the proprietor of Birla Cement Works Chittorgarh; and M. M. Goswami (petitioner 2 herein) is the Senior Vice-President of Birla Cement Works Chittorgarh. The petitioners filed this application for issue to the State of Rajasthan (respondent 2) and the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (R.S.E.B.) direction, order or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus directing them to supply continuous electric energy of 10824 KVA to the petitioners' Cement Works at Chittorgarh and to refrain from showing discrimination in favour of M/s. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Alwar (respondent 4) as is being done pursuant to the letter, dated Dec. 20, 1982. The impugned letter which was addressed by the Special Secretary to the Rajasthan Government in the Industries (GR. I) Department to respondent 4 is as under:I am directed to refer to your representation dated the 23rd November, 1982 regarding power supply to your unit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1998Raj28; 1997(3)WLC411; 1997(2)WLN46
B.R. Arora, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Saroj Chotiya, by this writ petition, has challenged (i) the validity of Section 26(xiv) and its proviso (e) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, which provide general disqualification for the person to be elected as a Member, who has more than two children; and (ii) the legality and correctness of the order dated 13-1-97 (Annexure 4) by which the petitioner was put under suspension.2. Petitioner Smt. Saroj Chotiya, on 2X-9-95, was declared elected as a Member of the Municipal Board, Ratangarh from Ward No. 12. On 9-12-95 she gave birth to the third child. On 30-11-96, a notice under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act (for short, 'the Act') was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary, Local-Self Government, by which she was asked to explain why she should not be removed from the post of the Member of the Board as she has incurred the disqualification under Section 26 of the Act by giving birth to the third child. She filed reply to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
By Cr Misc Petition No.3560/2014, challenge is made to the order dated 29.5.2014, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, dismissing the application moved by the petitioners for declaring the proceedings taken against them as null and void ab initio so as the order dated 28.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan on criminal revision petition against the order dated 29.5.2014. A further prayer is to declare remand of accused petitioners as null and void so as the custody and they may be discharged and set at liberty. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 21.6.2014 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur (in Cr Misc Petition No.3420/2014), order dated 18.8.2014 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur (in Cr Misc Petition No.3798/2014). The challenge to the aforesaid orders have been made on the same grounds as have been urged in the main Cr Misc Petition No.3560/2014 and separa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2965; 1996(2)WLC613
Mohini Kapur, J.1. A number of habeas corpus petitions come up before this Court from time to time for purposes of reduction/commutation of sentences and release on parole/premature release by prisoners undergoing life imprisonment. There is a common belief in some quarters that life imprisonment means imprisonment for 14 years or imprisonment for 20 years and after this period the convict should be released automatically. Looking to the importance of the questions which arise in various habeas corpus petitions, the following questions were framed and advocates were also invited to assist the Court in answering these questions :-1. What is the maximum period of imprisonment which has to be undergone by a person sentenced to life imprisonment? This has to be decided in view of the Rules framed by the State of Rajasthan;2. After how many years of the actual imprisonment or imprisonment including remission is a convict undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life eligible for being consid...
Tag this Judgment!