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 Jodhpur
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Abdul Hamid & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Appeal No.929/2013 against the judgment dated 28.4.2012 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.36/2010. Date of Judgment ::31. t October, 2014 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the appellants. Mr. J.P.Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor, for the State. .... BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MATHUR,J.) REPORTABLE Being questioned correctness of the judgment dated 28.4.2012 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.36/2010, this appeal is before us. By the judgment impugned learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123 Ranbir Penal Code read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 25 read with ...
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!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10186/2011 Deravar Singh V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Order dt:2. 7/2014 1/28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10186/2011 Deravar Singh V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Order :::2. d July, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Shreyansh Mardia for Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the petitioner. Ms.Shweta Bora, for the respondents. --- REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:1. The present petitioner Derawar Singh S/O Bhakar Singh working as Sub-Inspector of Police has preferred this writ petition claiming an out of turn promotion. against the 10% reserved vacancies for the year 2006-2007 under Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 which is enacted to reward the police personnel who perform the outstanding and extraordinary acts of courage in discharge of their duties and with their outstanding caliber in the fields like anti-dacoity or anti-smuggling or any special field of poli...
Tag this Judgment!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 : 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 : RLW2009(4)Raj3124
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, Major Jagmal Singh Yadav and Ram Balak Patel, against the order dated Feb. 6, 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 Deeg Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2008 whereby the trial court framed charges under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against them petitioner No. 1 is Proprietor of M/s. Jagmal Singh & Corporation and petitioner No. 2 is employee in the said firm. The said firm is a license holder firm bearing licence No. E/NC/HN/22/13 (E-10019) HN-159/E which was issued by the Chief Explosive Controller, Northern Region, Faridabad (Haryana) and is dealing in providing explosive for the use of mines in the country. For using explosive under the aforesaid license, the petitioner established site project office at village Luhesar, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur and sought permission to use explosive in the mines at Kaman by to Chief controller of Explosive. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2376; RLW2010(1)Raj449
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These four criminal appeals, on behalf of accused-appellants, and one criminal leave to appeal, on behalf of the State, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2000, passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Mansingh Death case), Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 8/98, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The trial Court, vide its impugned order, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:Accused Under ImprisonmentSection1. Abdul Mateen 14 of the To undergo 5 years RIForeigners and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;Act, 1946 in default, to furtherundergo 1 years' SI4 of PDPP To undergo 10 years RIAct and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI456 IPC To undergo 3 years RIand a fine of Rs. 3,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 6 months' SI307/120B To undergo 10 years' RIIPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-;in default, to furtherundergo 2 years' SI435/120B To undergo 7 years RIIPC...
Tag this Judgment!