Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj779; 2005(2)WLC465
Dalip Singh, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Manish Dixit who is undergoing the sentence awarded to him in Sessions Case No. 158/1994 having being convicted for offences under Sections 302,397 and 364 I.P.C. and 7/25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and lesser sentence for the other offences and at present he is lodged in Central Jail, Jaipur.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought the relief that in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1972'), he is entitled to be sent to the Open Air Camp at Sanganer and he seeks a direction for being sent to the said Open Air Camp. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken in the custody on 12.07.1994. He has already served the sentence of seven years for the offence under Section 397 I.P.C. yet he has been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2645; 1995(2)WLC262
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in a case pending before the Designated Court at Ajmer under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'the T.A.D.A. Act' hereinafter).2. The petitioner is being proceeded against on the allegation that he has committed offences under Sections 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act and under Sections 7/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. As the petitioner in his petition has stated that he was being proceeded against under Sections 3 and 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act, the case was fixed for rehearing and it was not clarified as to whether the petitioner is being proceeded against under Section 3 of the T.A.D.A. Act also. However, on the basis of the certified copy of the challan produced by the petitioner, a copy of which is already on record as Annexure 1 to the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is being proceeded against on the aforesaid offences only. Though the petition is for quashing the entire proceedings against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)543
Vinod Shankar Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr. PC in a case under Section 3/6 of I.P.P.R., 307 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as 'the T.A.D.A. Act')- The petitioner was taken into custody on 25th April, 1987 in FIR No. RC 8/87 registered at SPE, Jaipur. This report was lodged by Shri Nahar Singh, Company Commander, B.S.F., Sri ganganagar on 16th June, 1987. This case was registered initially against accused Mohan Inder Singh alias Pushpinder Singh alias Ajeet Singh. During the investigation of the case Shri Mohan Inder Singh made a detailed statement before the Investigating Officer where in he also made reference to the petitioner and made certain disclosures about the petitioner's rendering services for carrying out certain activities prejudicial to the security of the State. On the basis of this statement, as mentioned aforesaid, the petitioner was arreste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)336
V.S. Dave, J.1. This reference has been made by learned Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area, Karauli vide his order of reference, dated 20-6-1988 where in he has framed the following question for answer:'Whether the Magistrates having jurisdiction over the dacoity affected areas are competent to perform functions in relation to scheduled offences, prior to the stage of trial before the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas'?2. Almost connected with the aforesaid question the point also emerge in Man Singh v. State, S.B Cr. Misc Petition No. 369/88, Heera Lal v. Johari and Ors. SB. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 178/89 and Hari Ram v. State SB. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2859/88. These cases therefore, have also been heard along with this reference though they will be disposed of by separate orders purely based on the result of this reference.3. Before appreciating the point referred to it will be essential to give the back-ground in which this question has arisen. On a written report from one Mano...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1995]211ITR201(Raj)
V.S. Dave, J. 1. These two applications have been moved under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment years 1981-82 and 1983-84 after theapplication under Section 256(1) of the Act has been rejected, vide order dated November 6, 1990, and April 9, 1991, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, raising the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed depreciation on truck at the rate of 40 per cent. as against 30 per cent. allowed by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The assessee is an individual carrying on business in explosives. He claimed depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent. in respect of his vehicles. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation only at the rate of 30 per cent., as according to the Income-tax Officer, the vehicles were used in his own busines...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996ACJ736; 1996(2)WLC146
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment/award dated 14.1.1987 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalore, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed both the claim petitions filed by the appellants-claimants on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.11.1983 Nathu Rarn, the driver of the Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation, at about 4.30 p.m. parked the bus No. RRM 1473 at the Bus Stand, Jalore. The bus was to commence its journey to Bhinmal. The booking of this bus started. The passengers bought the tickets from the booking window and after buying the tickets, boarded the bus. Rukmani w/o Ram Chandra alias Ram Kishan, Indra d/o Ram Chandra, Manju d/o Kesri Mal, Bajrang s/o Ram Chandra, Bhanwari d/o Misri Mal and other passengers boarded the bus after buying the tickets. Defendant No. 5, Banshi Lal, also boarded the bus. He was carrying one big ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ610Raj; 1995(2)WLN507
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of all the above writ petitions as the point involved is common in all these writ petitions, namely, whether the employees of the canteen could be considered the employees of H.M.T. Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) or/are the employees of H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen, Ltd. (hereinafter called co-operative canteen).Writ petition No. 1341 of 1986 has been filed by H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Labour Court, dated March 27, 1986, in which it was decided that the H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd., is the employer of V.N. Bose and not the company. A prayer is made that the said employee be declared the employee of the company irrespective of the fact that he was working in the co-operative canteen.Writ Petition No. 1477 of 1987 has been filed by the H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated November 5, 1986, in which it was declared that the employees of the canteen are r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009ACJ858
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment dated 26.3.1991, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Claim Case No. 40 of 1989.2. Claimants-appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 11,70,000 stating the fact that on 20.11.1988 at about 5 p.m., when Rajendra Kumar was near Telephone Exchange building and moving towards Padampur, then jeep bearing No. RSC 9170 driven by Devilal, caused accident, resulting in death of Rajendra Kumar. It was urged that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Devilal.3. Reply was filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Tribunal, denying their liabilities.4. It is contended that authorised driver of the jeep involved in the accident was Diwan Chand but jeep was unauthorisedly driven by Devilal, as nobody authorised Devilal to drive the said jeep. It was further contended that the owner of the jeep is only Panchayat Samiti and not the government. It was lastly conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLN701
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was detained by order dated 20th June, 2001 made by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been made by recording satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on number of grounds.3. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been served with grounds of detention dated 22.6.2001 only but the original order of detention dated 20th June, 2001 and order of confirmation of detention order dated 26th June, 2001, were not served on the detenue at all and order of confirmation has been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the detenue to make a representation before the State Government or the Board. In connection with this it was submitted by the petitioner that in the meeting of Advisory Board the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1971WLN23
Kan Singh, J.1. Accused Mangal Singh and Sahab Singh were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge No. 1, Dholpur of offences under Sections 326 and 326 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code respectively Each one of them was awarded a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/-; in default six months' further rigorous imprisonment. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge further ordered that at amount of Rs. 250/- out of the fine, if realised, shall be paid to injured Gordhana. The accused lodged an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Bharatpur which was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dholpur who had dismissed it and maintained the conviction and the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners. They have come up to this Cour in revision.2. There was bad blood between P.W. 1 Gordhana and the two accused on account of a dispute about an agricultural land. Mangal Singh was the son aged about 14 years at the time and Sahab Singh was his...
Tag this Judgment!