Court : Rajasthan
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
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
Reported in : AIR1997Raj250
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This writ petition and the other eleven writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule, raise the common controversies, namely (i) the validity of Section 19 (L) read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; (ii) the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the respective Chief Executive Officer, by which the petitioners were declared disqualified; and (iii) the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer to hold an enquiry in the matter of declaring a Panch or a Member of the Panchayat Raj Institution to continue as the Sarpanch as he has incurred the disqualification on account of birth of an additional child in the family raising the number of the children to more than two. As all these writ petitions involve the common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Banera (district Bhilwara) on 4-2-95. While he was acting as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(2)WLC672; 1997(1)WLN682
B.R. Arora, J.1. This writ petition and the other eleven writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule raise the common controversies, namely, (i) the validity of Sections 19(L) read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; (ii) the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the respective Chief Executive Officer, by which the petitioners were declared disqualified; and (iii) the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer to hold an enquiry in the matter of declaring a Panch of a Member of the Panchayat Raj Institution to continue as the Sarpanch as he has incurred the disqualification on account of birth of an additional child in the family raising the number of the children to more than two. As all these writ petitions involve the common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baner (district Bhilwara) on 4.2.95. While he was acting as the Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997ACJ304; AIR1996Raj126; 1996(1)WLN152
Arun Madan, J.1. The appellant-InsuranceCompany has preferred this appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), againstthe Award, dated 29th January, 1994, passedby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrodin Civil Miscellaneous (MAC) Case No. 130/92 (34/90) whereby an Award of Rupees5,96,000/- was passed in favour of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Aggrieved by the saidAward the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that on 30th September, 1989 at about 7.00 p.m. late Pareesh Marya was driving his Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DAJ 3013 on Behrod-Sahjahanpur road. A Truck bearing Registration No. DIG 3144 was parked in a stationary position on the national highway near Behrod 1 km. ahead of Neemrana turn. Instead of parking the truck on the footpath its driver had parked the same on the road. Since the parking lights of the truck were not on at that time and also on account of darkness the...
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 : 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
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
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 : 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!