Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-29-2009
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
Decided on : Mar-20-2009
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
Decided on : Feb-03-2009
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!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-30-2009
Reported in : AIR2010Raj15
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, whose suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned single Judge. The appellants now are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. Likewise some of the respondents are also legal representatives of the original defendants.2. For the present brief facts may be recapitulated, being, that the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration arid possession on 18-1 -1955, alleging inter alia, that the plaintiff being Jagirdar of village Surpura, and had two younger brothers, being Bakhat Singh and Ranjit Singh defendant. Out of them Bakhat Singh moved application before the Chief Minister for maintenance, and he was awarded Rs. 40/- per month for maintenance, and Rs. 1500/- for constructing residential house, and that Ranjit Singh was also started being paid Rs. 40/- per month, and when he was offered Rs. 1500/- for construction of house in April, 1946, he declined to receive the same, on one gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-22-2009
Reported in : AIR2010Raj1
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.BY THE COURT:1. In this revision petition, the petitioner State Bank of India, Bhilwara is challenging order dated 29.05.2009 passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 126/2009, by which, the learned District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner Bank under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C.2. Facts of the case indicate that plaintiff-respondent filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the action of the Bank for declaring company's bank accounts as NPA and making debit entries. Along with the said suit, application for temporary injunction was filed. Upon service of summonses/notices issued in the said suit, petitioner Bank filed application under3. In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C., it is stated by the petitioner Bank that the original suit itself is barred by provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-29-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3201
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal by the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Jaipur and Senior Medical Officer, Incharge, Upgraded Primary Health Centre, Jhadol, Dist. Udaipur has been filed against the claimants and owner of the vehicle against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer deciding the claim petition No. 388/2006 (340/2006) on 8.9.2008 in respect of an accident which took place on 18.6.2005 at 9.30 a.m. at Jhadol, Dist. Udaipur. Since the claimants were residing at Ajmer, in accordance with the provisions of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, they could file claim petition at the place of their residence besides the place where the accident took place and therefore, they preferred to file said claim petition before the learned MACT, Ajmer and the said claim petition came to be decided by the learned Tribnal on 8.9.2008 awarding a sum of Rs. 1 1,73,000/- in favour of the claimant for the death of one person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-20-2009
Reported in : 2009(3)WLN553
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The claimants appellants have filed this appeal against the award dt. 13.07.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa in motor accident Claim Case No. 381/1997.2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts as the only question is whether the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants appellants is fair and reasonable?.3. The claimant appellant No. 1 Sushma Sharma is the wife and the claimant appellant No. 2 Ankit @ Ilu is the son of the deceased Ashok Kumar who died in an accident on 19.10.1997. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2400/- per month and after deducting 1/3 of it on account of his personal expenses and after adopting a multiplier of 15 calculated the dependency at Rs. 1600X12X15= Rs. 2,88,000/- and after adding Rs. 21,500/- on various counts passed a total award of Rs. 3,09,500/- in favour of the claimants appellants. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the claimants appellants.5. Learned Counsel for the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-12-2009
Reported in : 2009(3)WLN468
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The claimants appellants have filed this appeal against the award dt. 31.07.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in motor accident Claim Case No. 255/1995.2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts as the only question before me is that whether the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants appellants is just and reasonable. 3. The deceased Ashwani Kumar died as a result of an accident on 06.11.1994. Learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 3,09,600/-in favour of the claimants appellants. Aggrieved, the claimants appellants have filed this appeal.4. Learned Counsel for the claimants appellants submits that learned Tribunal after assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month deducted Rs. 1100/- per month on account of his personal expenses and assessed the dependency at Rs. 1400/- per month. He submits that learned Tribunal has committed grave illegality as not more than 1/3 of the income could be deducted for personal expens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-08-2009
Reported in : 2009(2)WLN387
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of all the retiral benefits of pension, gratuity, commutation, State Insurance and G.P.F. Etc. for the entire period of service from 02.02.1970 to 30.11.2004 without any deduction and objection, calculated immediately on his retirement on 30.11.2004 on the basis of the last pay drawn. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay withheld amount towards gratuity and the amount of commutation etc. with arrears arising out of retiral benefits and interest @ 12% on the benefits from the date they became payable till the date of actual payment.2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed on 02.02.1970 as Police Constable in the R.A.C., 6th Battalion. Later on, after adjudging the suitability of the petitioner for the post of Constable Driver, he was selected and given posting ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-06-2009
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj631
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated January 17, 1986 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1985 by which the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1986, who are original accused No. 1 Goru and original accused No. 3 Hajari (A/1 & A/3' for short) of Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1986 came to be convicted of the offences under Sections 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and A-1 Goru Ram has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months whereas A-3 Hajari, instead of sentencing at once was accorded benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act as he was less than 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence. Rest of the two accused A-2 Jagdish and A-4 Ramkishan alongwith above two accused namely, A-1 Goru Ram and A-3 Hajari who are respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!