Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-19-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3131; 1997WLC(Raj)UC352
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr. P.C) has been filed against the order dated 28-3-97 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 91/96.2. Briefly stated, for the disposal of the present petition, the facts giving rise to this petition are that Hazari Ram resident of Chak 19 B. D. lodged FIR No. 129/95 at the Police Station, Khajuwala, District Bikaner on 25-10-95 at 12.30 p.m. reporting at about 7.30 a.m. that he had gone to the field of his son-in-laws Heera Lal and Bhagirath etc. whereat mustard was to be sown with the tractor of Maniram Bishnoi. The accused Ram Kumar resident of Chak 3 B. D. accompanied by his co-accused persons, came armed with a D.B.B.L. who was exclaiming that Randhir Singh and Jagdish should remain there and that he would kill both of them with his gun. He (info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-27-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2493
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. Both these revision petitions are directed against the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in 24-2-94, allowing the revision application of the complainant by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, directed framing of charges against the applicant in each of these revisions.2. Facts giving rise to these petitions, stated briefly are that a First Information Report was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, by which respondent No. 2, who alleged that he got himself admitted to the Jodhpur Hospital and Research Centre, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, for treatment of his ailment of bleeding piles. During the course of his treatment he disclosed that he is a patient of diabetes and, should, accordingly be treated. On 21-4-92, he developed some pain in his back and was, therefore, referred to Dr. Narender Singh Yadav, applicant in Revision Petition No. 111 /94, as he was working in the orthopacdic Department of the Hosp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-25-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3959; 1998(1)WLN671
ORDERAmaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28th March, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No. 26-A/96, whereby the order dated 3rd June, 1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Original Case No. 22/95 under Section 133, Cr.P.C. was upheld.3. The facts of the case may be summarised as below :-On 2nd June, 1995, an application signed by Saleem and Ors. was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu. In this application, it was mentioned that the applicant's house was situated near Ramgarhia Darwaaja and about 9 ft.wide portion of the applicant's house was beyond the building line prescribed under Section 165 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and the applicant had vacated that portion of his house, it was also stated in the application that adjacent to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-05-1998
Reported in : 1998(1)WLN205
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant revision, impugns the order dated Feb. 28, 1996 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar whereby the application filed by the legal representatives of deceased tenant for bringing them on record was allowed and they were ordered to be impleaded as appellants in the appeal.2. Learned court of Munsif Alwar on April 11, 1986, decreed the suit for eviction instituted by the plaintiff petitioner (for short the land lord) and the defendant tenant Bodh Raj (for short the tenant) was directed to vacate the shop in dispute. The tenant preferred appeal assailing the judgment and decree of the trial court. During the pendency of appeal the tenant Bodh Raj expired on April 12, 1988. His legal representatives filed an application on July, 11, 1988 for bringing them on record as appellants. The land lord contested the application on the ground that none of the legal representatives were working with deceased Bodh Raj during his life time in the disputed c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-08-1998
Reported in : I(1999)DMC468
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated 13.5.1997 by which he ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 350/- per month to each of his children Rinku and Kirti from the date of application submitted under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.3. Mansha Bai was married to Shyamlal. Out of this wedlock two children were born. It was alleged in the petition that the wife and two minor children were kicked out of the house by the petitioner and he was not maintaining them for last 7 years. They were kicked out without any cause and have been neglected by the petitioner. He has refused to maintain them. The minor children Rinku and Kirti were living with their mother who was living with her mother as her father has already expired. They do not have any source of income and are unable to maintain themselves. The petitioner was a rail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-08-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2704
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated 13-5-97 by which he ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 350/- per month to each of his children Rinku and Kirti from the date of application submitted under Section 125, Cr.P.C.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.3. Mansha Bai was married to Shyamlal. Out of this wedlock two children were born. It was alleged in the petition that the wife and two minor children were kicked out of the house by the petitioner and he was not maintaining them for last 7 years. They were kicked out without any cause and have been neglected by the petitioner. He has refused to maintain them. The minor children Rinku and Kirti were living with their mother who was living with her mother as her father has already expired. They do not have any source of income and are unable to maintain themselves. The petitioner was a railway employee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-09-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Raj266; 1998(3)WLC336
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The abovenoted writ petitions have been preferred before this Court by the petitioners who have both challenged the order dated 14-7-1993 passed by the Rajasthan State Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the STAT') in Revision Petition No. STAT (125/93) and Revision Petition No. STAT (151/93) whereby, a non-temporary stage carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioners by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') for the route Neem-ka-thana to Bhiwuri was quashed and set aside. Since the petitioners in both the writ petitions have challenged the operation and effect of the common order dated 14-7-1993 passed by the STAT and in view of the identical question of law being involved for consideration of this Court, the same are being dealt with and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, I deem it appropriate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-13-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Raj108; 1998(1)WLN1
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13-5-1988 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Suit No. 220/85 (Chhotu Lal v. Chelo Devi and others).2. The brief facts leading up to filing of the present appeal are that plaintiff-respondent No. 3-Chhotu Lal filed a suit against Rugha Ram Luhar (father of the appellants) in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner on 23-12-1980 for mandatory and perpetual injunction. Plaintiff-respondent No. 3 alleged in his plaint that his house is situated at Alakhsagar Road and on the south a pacca road going from D.S.N. Rly's office to Kot Gate and one road from it goes towards the shop of Sunder Lal. It is also alleged that between the house of the plaintiff and both the roads, public chowk and land of public way is in existence. The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 further alleged that the defendant No. 1 has raised construction over the land of public utility which was being used as a publi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-13-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3492
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. By this order the above four revision petitions will be decided because the same points of law are involved in all of them.2. In Cr. Revision No. 383/93 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali framed charges under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1974). Om Prakash has challenged the order and wants that this Court should quash the charges.3. In Cr. Revision No. 390/93 the learned Magistrate framed charges under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section 44 of the Act of 1974 against petitioners M/s. Chhipa Yusuf Gani, Jeewan Singh and Mohd. Yusuf. They have challenged the order and want that the charges should be quashed.4. In Cr. Revision No. 77/93 M/s. Jain Textiles and Prasanna Kumar have been charged for offence under Section 24 read with Section 43 and Section 26 read with Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-15-1998
Reported in : II(1998)ACC232; 1998ACJ959; 1998WLC(Raj)UC467; 1998(1)WLN26
J.C. Verma, J.1. Because of the unfortunate accident on 21.12.1985 at the place called Rupangarh when truck No. RNB 948 had hit jeep RLA 5524, driver of the jeep Govind Singh died who was aged about 25 years at the time of death. At that time he was getting a monthly income of Rs. 750/- per month. His wife Santosh aged about 23 years, his son aged about 10 months and his mother Durga preferred the claim before the M.A.C.T. The Tribunal had come to the finding that the deceased Govind Singh had died because of rash and negligent driving of truck No. RNB 948 being driven by Ranjit Singh driver, respondent No. 1. The dependency income was assessed at Rs. 500/- per month and applying the multiplier of 35, a compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- was ultimately assessed and in addition consortium of Rs. 5,000/- was granted to wife and another Rs. 5,000/- to the minor son. The mother was not paid any amount at all. The total compensation assessed by the Tribunal came to be Rs. 2,20,000/- and after d...
Tag this Judgment!