Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-26-2002
Reported in : 2003CriLJ115
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th January, 1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots) and Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk by which he has convicted appellant Amba Lal for offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's imprisonment. Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer three years' imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's imprisonment.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 17-4-1996 at 11.30 a.m. Dev Lal P. W. 1 submitted a written report. Ex. P. 1 on the spot to SHO Police Station Dooni, District Tonk alleging therein that in the morning, he left the house for Raj Mahal for some wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-08-2002
Reported in : 2002(3)WLN677
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Vishnu Shanker and Jagdish Prasad against a judgment dated 24.7.1998 delivered by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Udaipur, whereby the appellants were acquitted of the charge Under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and ere convicted Under Section 3(1)(v) of the said Act as well as Under Sections 447 and 427 of the I.P.C.2. So far as the offences Under Sections 447 and 427 are concerned, the complainant Navla and the accused persons on 18.7.2001 entered into a compromise which was filed in this Court and was verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial).Consequently, the two appellants are acquitted of the charges Under Sections 427 and 447 of the I.P.C.3. Now, the conviction Under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act remains.4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record of the case. I find that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-13-2002
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1442; 2002(4)WLN645
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 31.1.1992 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to assign seniority to the petitioner for the date when he was initially appointed i.e. 6.11.1973 and the seniority list dated 29.10.1991 (Annex.5) be declared illegal and be quashed and the respondents be further directed to give selection grade to the petitioner on and from the date when he has completed 15 years of service and also the arrears which had so accrued to the petitioner.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioner, after having passed matric with Drawing got himself registered with the Employment Exchange, Jodhpur on 21.7.72 and his registration number is C/2533/72. It was submitted by the petitioner that on a requisition having been sent to the Employment Exchange, his name was forwarded to the respondents for selection ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-22-2002
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj1185; 2002(4)WLC545; 2002(5)WLN589
Garg, J.1. The above writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both the writ petitions facts are similar in nature and the questions raised are also similar.Facts of Writ Petition No. 1164/922. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 25.2.92 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the orders dtd. 5.10.91 (Annex.6) and 7.10.91 (Annex.5) whereby respondents No. 4 and 5 have been promoted be quashed petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Officer, Municipal Board Gr. II in the post falling vacant after December, 1976 and for the post of Executive Officer, Gr. I, Municipal Board on the post falling vacant after December, 1981 and the State Government may be directed to allow the petitioner the emoluments of the post of Executive Officer Gr. II, Municipal Board with effect from 25.4.81 and any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued the may be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-11-2002
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2342; 2003(1)WLC687
Garg, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Appeal No. 70/85 by which he dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.9.19984 passed the learned Addl. Munsiff No. 1 Bikaner in original civil suit No. 103/77 (367/74) by which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for eviction of the defendant - respondent from the suit premises (shop) on the ground of reasonable & bonafide necessity as envisaged under Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), was dismissed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit on 18.11.1974, later-on the plaint was amended on 15.11.1976 through which para 4(A) was added and, thereafter, the plaint was further amended on 30.3.1983 by which another para...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-15-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)WLC22; 2003(3)WLN363
F.C. Bansal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 13.11.1997, passed by learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the appellant - Ritesh Bhargava @ Bunti has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 months' Rigorous Imprisonment.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that P.W. 1-Smt. Sita W/o Gulab Singh Choudhary resident of Plot No. 120, Shiv Colony, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, made a verbal report (Ex. P. 1) to S.H.O. Police Station-Sodala on 24.6.1994 at 8.00 A.M. It was, inter alia, stated in the report that yesterday at 10.00 P.M. she alongwith her husband Gulab Singh, her son Manoj and Miss Prabhati, who is daughter of her Jeth was sitting in her house. Bunti and Raju: a pick-pocket, along with a person entered in the house. Her husband Gulab Singh made them to sit and asked her to prep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-17-2002
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR898]; RLW2003(3)Raj1829; 2002(4)WLN671
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1.This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 11.5.1992 against the (SIC) with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 28.11.1991 (Annex.8) passed by the No. 1-Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, Sri Ganganagar be quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The respondent No. 2 Tilak Raj filed a claim petition under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958') before the respondent No. 1 Authority under Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the Authority') on 8.5.1989 stating inter alia that the respondent No. 2 had been functioning as Manager in the New Light talkies, Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar and he was being paid salary of Rs.1075/- per month since 15.4.1979 and the services o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-26-2002
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2603; 2003(1)WLC563
Misra, J.1. The petitioner Commercial Taxes Officer has preferred this revision petition against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 21.4.98 wherein it has been held that the product sold by the respondent-company which are Hose-collar, Hose-socket, Hose connector, Hose-clip, foot-valve are the items used in water pump and hence, the sales-tax which was leviable under these items would be 10% as it will have to be treated as a residuary item which prescribes 10% tax only. Thus, the order passed by the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority holding therein that it should be leviable under item No. 78 which specifies 12% tax for all types of sanitary goods and all types of pipes and pipe-fittings cannot be levied as the items manufactured by the respondent herein would fall in the residuary items. Consequently, the orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities were set aside by the Rajasthan Tax Board at Ajmer.2. The petitioner-Department through the Commercial Taxes Of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-14-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Raj128; 2003(1)WLC495; 2003(2)WLN383
Arun Kumar, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals and D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3879/2001 raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The only additional point raised in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3839/2001 is that it challenges vires of Section 3(36) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) read with Rule 3, Sub-rule (9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence Against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'No Confidence Motion Rules') on the ground that these are violative of Articles 14 and 243-R of the Constitution of India. Though, several legal issues have been raised in these cases, the foremost point is, as to whether nominated members of a Municipal Board, who have been meetings of the Board, should be counted in total no confidence in the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Board.2. As per facts on record, no confidence m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-26-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)WLC3; 2003(3)WLN339
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The appellant Prem Singh was indicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota in Session Case No. 36/95 for having committed murder of Deepak. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC vide its judgment dated April 6, 1998 to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Against this judgment of conviction and sentence the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellant.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 11.6.1995 at 11:05 P.M., P.W. 14 Rajendra Singh Rathore, SHO, P.S. Kunhadi, Kota City recorded 'Parcha Bayan' Ex. P. 1 of Smt. Rekha (P.W. 1) W/o Bheru Lal, by caste-Dhobi, R/o Sakatpura, (Kota City) at her house, wherein she stated that today after around 7:30 P.M., she and her nephew Pappu @ Deepak were ironing clothes. At that time Hansraj and Satya Narain quarrelled each other and Sattu chased Hansraj when ...
Tag this Judgment!