Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN220
V.S. Dave, J.1. This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is filed challenging the legality of the detention order, dated June 4, 1985, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'), on which date two persons, namely, Sita Ram Somani and Om Prakash Soni, the petitioner, were detained by two separate orders but having close association and implicating one another in the act of smuggling, both the persons were arrested on the same day, i.e., January 1, 1985, and were released on bail by a single order. Both after granting bail, were detained under the aforesaid Act and filed separate Habeas Corpus Writ Petitions. D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1425/85 was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench consisting of S.C. Agrawal and Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, JJ. vide their order, dated September 25, 1985, while this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has come before us. In fact both the Habeas Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj28
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5.2.2005 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali Headquarter Jaitaran in Sessions case No. 98/2004 whereby the appellant Chetan Lal has been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and in, alternative under Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the sole convict appellant Chetan Lal.3. The entire case of the prosecution as set up is that complainant Bhanwar Lal, Ramsukh along with Madan Ram on 29.1.2001 at 2:30 A.M gave parcha bayan Ex.P/1 at Police Station, Raipur (Camp) alleging that he along with his maternal uncle's grandson - Jagdish were going on a scooter and when they reached near Paladiya well, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1434; 1998(3)WLC536
ORDERAmaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for :he appellants and the learned; Public Prosecutor.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th Sept. 95 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ratanagarh (Churu) in Sessions Case No. 42/73 State v. Rakesh. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Rakesh under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. and the appellant Vinod alias Vinodia under Section 366A, I.P.C. The accused persons were sentenced as mentioned below :-(1) Accused Rakesh - (a) under Sections 376, I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 100/- and further rigorous imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine.(b) Under Section 366, I.P.C. - Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/- and further rigorous imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine.(2) Accused Vinod - Under Section 366A, I.P.C..-Rigorous imprisonm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1061; RLW2006(2)Raj1016; 2006(1)WLC780
S.P. Pathak, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh in Sessions Case No. 12/2000 - State v. Vishhnudutt Soni whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 25.10.1999 at 11 PM complainant Manakchand Soni presenting himself at Police Station Anoopgarh lodged a written report to the effect that his two daughters named Meera and Seema have been married to the sons of Bhera Ram, resident of Ward No. 9, Anoopgarh about three years ago. It was further stated in the report that on thatday at about 1:30 PM he received information at his home that his daughter Meera has received burn injuries and she has been admitted in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4307; RLW2005(4)Raj2420; 2005(4)WLC142
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 6.4.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 05/2005 arising out of FIR No. 116/2004, Police Station, Chitawa whereby the Trial Court framed the charges against non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC instead 498-A and 304-B IPC. Aggrieved by order impugned, whereby the Trial Court declined to frame the Charge for the offence under Section 304B IPC, the petitioner- complainant has filed the instant revision petition.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the order impugned and challan papers.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 12.10.2004, the petitioner- complainant lodged a first informa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009(2)WLN404
C.M. Totla, J.1. Appellant accused is as per judgment of 13.03.2003 in Sessions Case No. 7/2002 before the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh-convicted and sentenced for (1) Section 302, IPC, life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default three months' simple imprisonment, (2) Section 302 read with Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act, with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default three months' simple imprisonment. L.I. to run concurrently.2. Assailed is the above conviction and sentence.3. As per prosecution, sequence of investigation following incident is that on 27.11.2001, at 8 A.M., on telephone, one Dharmpal informed Police Stlation, Nohar that Rai Singh of their village, has killed her Bhabhi Kamlesh, whose dead body is in their home and Raisingh is sitting - recording information in Roznamcha as entry No. 1329 SHO proceeded to spot at village Bhukarka, where accused Raisingh stated to him and he took down as Parcha-Bayan Ex.P 12 that they a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(2006)DMC300; RLW2006(3)Raj2115; 2006(2)WLC743
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th of July 2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur, in Sessions Case No. 300/2001, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), to ten years rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 9th April 2000 PW% 1 Deep Singh lodged a written report (Exhibit P-1) at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, wherein it was alleged that his daughter Rekha was married with Bhola @ Dilip Singh about three years ago. Bhola @ Dilip Singh started harassing her daughter Rekha by saying that her father has not given dowry. He used to tell her daughter to bring dowry in cash as well as scooter, it was further alleged that his daughter was ousted from the house and she remained with him for about four months but she was taken back by Bhola (w Dilip Singh about twenty days ago a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2748
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.2004 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur and declare that the provisions of Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 do not apply to the present case.2. The main question involved in this writ petition is that whether the petitioner federation is covered by the provisions of Section 3 Sub section (x) of the Rent Control Act, 2001. In respect of the premises, which were let to a public sector undertaking in which the capital of the State Government was to the extent of 95% and the said Undertaking was being administered by the Officers of the State Government and therefore Chapters II and III of the Rent Control Act were not applicable in the present case.3. This main issue is highlighted by the petitioner in the entire writ petition with the support of the Provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1610; RLW2009(1)Raj662
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. A damaged car, an injured young man inside the car, a dead body of a young lady lying beyond a wall, not far from the damaged car, allegations of kidnapping, murder and destruction of evidence, defense of accident, the conviction of both the appellants for various offences are the different strands weaving the tapestry of this case. The appellants, Ankush Wadhwa ('A-1', for short) and Dwarka Prasad ('A-2', for short) have challenged the judgment dated 29.09.2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 4, Kota whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:Ankush Wadhwa (A-1)Offences SentenceUnder Section Life Imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/-,302 IPC in default thereof rigorous imprisonmentfor six months.Under Section Five years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine363 IPC of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section One year rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine201 IPC of Rs. 500/-, in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ810Raj; 1998(1)WLC1; 1997(2)WLN658
M.G. Mukherji, C. J. 1. The reference is at the instance of the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6345/ 1992 and S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3784/1993. In the first writ application filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('RSRTC' for short hereinafter) the award dated December 3, 1991 as passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara in Labour Case No. 9/1991, formerly numbered as 39/1987 has been impugned by the RSRTC whereby the learned Judge, Labour Court having found the order of termination dated October 8, 1994 to be unsustainable directed reinstatement of the workman Gopal Singh treating his case to be one of continuous employment and observed that the said Gopal Singh would be entitled to 50% of his backwages till the date of the award and would be entitled to full wages thereafter. His two annual grade increments were withheld. The, RSRTC was also declared to be entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 8000/- to which extent it sustained as a loss on accoun...
Tag this Judgment!