Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-16-1995
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
Decided on : Mar-20-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC321; 1995(1)WLN451
N.K. Jain, J.1. Since all the writ petitions are arising out of the same matter and the petitioners have claimed almost same relief, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884 of 1994:Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that during the search of premises of one Poonam Chand Vishnoi, Mr. Chain Singh Rajpurohit, State House Officer Police Station Bajju District Bikaner recovered some arms from his possession. It is alleged that the accused Poonam chand Vishnoi during the Course of interrogation admitted that he was involved in the smuggling of arms and ammunition from Pakistan and he had sold some arms and ammunitions to the persons. In pursuance of the information given by Poonam Chand Vishnoi, an FIR (Annex. 1) dt. 28.9.93 was chalked out and a case under Sections 3 & 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the TADA') read with Sections 3/25 of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-10-1995
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
Decided on : May-03-1995
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
Decided on : Aug-14-1995
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!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-05-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2015; 1996(1)WLC413
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The appellant-Shabbir Mohammad was prosecuted in case FIR No.8/89 of Police Station, Peesangan, District Ajmer for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B IPC with the allegations that he, in' conspiracy with some others (since acquitted), had caused fatal burn injuries on the person of his wife Abida (deceased). He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 124/89. One of the documents filed by the prosecution in support of its case was the post mortem report prepared by the doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The appellant was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the said post mortem report and, since he did not dispute the genuineness thereof, it was admitted in evidence as Ex.P. 10 under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) and, thereupon, the prosecution did not produce the doctor concerned as a witness in the Court. The learned Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-18-1995
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
Decided on : Jan-05-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Raj109
ORDERP.K. Palli, J.1. These writ petitions raise common question of fact and law and thus are proposed to be disposed of by a common order. The facts are taken from S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 297/1993.2. The petitioner is running a Cinema in the City of Jodhpur known as Kohinoor Cinema. The State of Rajasthan enacted an Act known as Rajasthan Entertainments & Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act) and under Section 4 of the Act tax is leviable at the rate not exceeding 100% of the payment for purposes of admission which is popularly called as entertainment tax. This tax is leviable even on complimentary ticket which is issued by the Proprietor. Section 5 of the Act lays down the manner in which the payment of tax is to be made and is to be calculated depending upon the number of admission. Section 5B deals with the assessment. Section 5C deals with re-assessment and Section 6 of the Act deals with admission to entertainments and lays down that no person other than a perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-06-1995
Reported in : (1996)130CTR(Raj)299
ORDERV. K. SINGHAL, J. :This order will dispose of the IT references listed above as the common question of law arises in both of them. For the purpose of the disposal of the references, the facts of the case of DB IT Ref. No. 38 of 1987 CIT vs. Shiv Narain shall be taken into consideration.2. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 30th Oct., 1985 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the asst. yr. 1981-82 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing to give the benefit of carry forward of loss even though the return was not filed within the time as allowed under s. 139(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and in ignoring the provisions of s. 80 of the Act ?'3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return on 25th Feb., 1982 which was due on 31st July, 1981 and in the said return the claim for carry forward of loss was made. The assessee did not attend the hearing in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC250; 1995(1)WLN500
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated March 18, 1992, in respect of the assessment year 1970-71 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the penalty of Rs. 25,485 levied under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee was completed ex parte on September 27, 1977, and penalty proceedings for late filing of the return were also initiated simultaneously. The return was filed on August 28, 1972, which was required to be filed on July 31, 1972, and as such notices were given to provide opportunity to the assessee as to why the penalty be not imposed. No reply was filed and the Wealth-tax Officer found that the assessee has committed default without any cogent ...
Tag this Judgment!