Court : Rajasthan
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
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 : 1995(1)WLC425; 1994(2)WLN444
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed-off by a common order because a common point of law is involved therein.2. These revision petitions have been preferred against the orders dated 3.7.92 and 29.7.92 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar in Sessions Case No.41/90 'State v. Harish Chadra' and Session Case No. 21/92 'State v. Devi and Ors.' respectively whereby allowing the application filed on behalf of accused non- petitioner (s), the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused non-petitioner (s) of the offence Under Sections 5(1)(9)(b), Explosive Act, 1884 and Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive substances Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and dropped the trials against them for want of valid sanction for prosecution Under Sections 7 of the Act.3. Now briefly the facts. In Haraish Chandra's case the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Raj., Jaipur submitted the challan against the accused for the offence Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2952; 1994(1)WLN348
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These two jail appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 26-8-1985, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has held the accused appellant Ghewaria guilty of the offences Under Section 302, I.P.C. and Under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and accused appellant Lakha Singh guilty of the offences Under Section 302/34 IPC and Under Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused-appellant Ghewaria has been sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine', to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence Under Section 302, IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisoment for three months for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the accused appellant Lakha sing has been sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN194
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. These appeals are brought against the common judgment of the learned District judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Cases No. 189/1988, 190/1988 and 191/1988, and arise from a contract between the parties. Hence, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts leading these appeals are as follows. The Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation (for short the Corporation') a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, after negotiations vide its letter dated June 7, 1982, awarded a contract to M/s G.S. Atwal & Co. (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Contractor') for raising the mineral 'dolomite'/rockphosphate in their leased are a known as 'Kanpur Mines' in Kolin project in Udaipur District, at the following rates:------------------------------------------------------------------------------Description of work. Quantity Rate per cub.m.---------------------------------------------...
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 : 1992(2)WLC19; 1991WLN(UC)402
N.K. Jain, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed Under Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the judgment of learned District Judge, Udaipur dt. 1.8.89 whereby the award given by arbitrator was made rule of the court.2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act. Respondent No. 1 is a registered firm having its registered office at Calcutta and brench office at Udaipur. The appellant and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement Ex. 1 on 14.5.81 for excavation and removal of overburden at Jhamarkotra Mines, Udaipur on a turn-key basis for excavation, removal transportation including loading and unloading, disposal clumping, dozing, levelling and spreading etc. of over burden at the specified dump yards including final dressing of the mine benches, faces and sides etc. and incidental mining rock phosphate are encoundered during the excavation of over burden, its transportation orestacks etc. The contract is for a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992CriLJ955; 1992(1)WLC76; 1991(2)WLN212; 1991(2)WLN259
V.S. Dave, J.1. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that the order granting remand to judicial custody to accused SVS Kuldeep Jain, Meethalal and Khajulal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, be declared illegal and consequently the detention to be unlawful. They further prayed that they be directed to be released forthwith.2. The main ground of challenge is that mandatory provisions of Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. have been grossly violated and the order granting remand to judicial custody has been passed in the absence of any prayer by the police or production of the case diary. The petitioners' case is that the Station House Officer, Police Station Motidoongri, Jaipur submitted a written report at the said police station on 19-11-1990 on which F.I.R. No. 275/90 was registered against one Shri D.P. Gupta at whose residential place as well as business premises a search was carried out revealing a sizable stock of explosives. The case was registered fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992CriLJ723; 1991(2)WLC421; 1991(2)WLN165
ORDERR.S. Verma, J.1. These two petitions Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. raise identical questions of law and facts. Hence, they have been heard together and are being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself by common consent.2. In S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 228 of 1991 petitioners Raju and others are the registered owners of tractor No. HMT 3511 and they also own the compressor attached with this tractor. In S. B Criminal Misc. Petition No. 232 of 1991 petitioner Bhanwar Singh is the registered owner of Tractor RNE 8914. He also owns the compressor attached to this tractor. On 24-4-1991 both these tractors were found carrying explosives without any licence and hence were seized by Shri Mahendra Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahpura. At the time of seizures Tractor HMT 3511 was found in possession of Ramlal s/o Raju and Kalu s/ o Kana, while Tractor RNE 8914 was found in possession of one Mukut Singh, who is real brother of Bhanwar Singh. In connection with trac...
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!