Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-08-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)50
..... preponderance of probabilities goes to establish that if at all laxmansingh and mst. jeetu bai struck lathi blows on prem, it was in the right of private defence. so their act is exempted in law from any criminal liability. the learned sessions judge after holding that the death of prem was homicidal, dealt with the matter under various heads viz. delay .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-22-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)158
..... not displaced on the cycle. the accused slapped the inspector and took away the cycle. it was held that the inspector was acting in a capacity of a public servant and in discharge of his official duty had seized the cycle. the offence committed by the ..... beat who while patrolling in uniform found accused person tying bundle of pieces of wood already out from the reserved forest. the act of apprehending of the accused by the forest guard and the seizing the bundle of wood by him was considered to be in ..... lai and anr. v. emperor air 1934 allah 1016 is of no help to the learned counsel for his contention that the act of the three forest employees was illegal. in that case an execution warrant was held to be bad because it did rot comply ..... the appellant where the incident had taken place.10. the definition of forest officer given in section 2(2) of the rajasthan forest act, 1953, is 'a forest officer means any person whom the state government or any officer empowered by the state government in this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-07-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)201
1. In the Harijan Mohalla of Pipar City, Kana Ram was beaten to death and Shri Kishan was seriously injured on 16th March, 1978 in the evening at about 8 p.m. Sohanlal s/o Shankerlal lodged a report in the police station, Pipar City at 9.30 p.m. of the same day alleging that Hari Bhajan, Sadulram and Amarchand attacked Kanaram with weapons and Hari Bhajan gave axe blow to Kanaram, Amarchand gave dharia blow to Kanaram and Sadulram gave lathi blow to Kanaram. When Shri Kishan tried to rescue, Hari Bhajan gave an axe blow in the head of Shri Kishan.2. The police registered a case under Section 307 IPC and later on after the death of Kanaram, the same was converted into 302 IPC against all the three accused. After investigation, they were challenged and after commitment, they faced trial.3. During trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Ilahi Bux, P.W. 2 Sugna Ram, P.W. 3 Dr. N.R. Bhandari, P.W. 4, Dr. K.N. Mathur, P.W. 5 Babu lal, PW 6 Sohanlal, PW 7 Gulab, PW 8 Shri Kishan, PW 9 Kaluram ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-18-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)272
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants Achlaram and Dungar Ram against the judgment and order dated January 31, 1977, passed by the Sessions Judge. Jodhpur, in sessions case No. 91 of 1975. In the aforesaid case the appellants were prosecuted in respect of offence under Section 307 IPC. By the judgment and order aforesaid, the Sessions Judge has convicted appellant Dungar Ram under Section 307 IPC and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Appellant Achlaram has been acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC and has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.2. The prosecution of the appellants relates to an incident which is alleged to have taken place on August 9, 1975 at about 6 p m. in the field of one Kammu khan and in the said incident, one Mohammed Khan received injuries. Two reports were lodged with the police in relation to the aforesaid incident....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-01-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)345
..... , sri ganganagar dated 19-4-1977 by which appellant ved prakash was convicted for the offence under section 379, of the indian penal code and section 25, arms act and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 300/-, in default to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and two years rigorous ..... recovery of gun at his instance without any licence in his name was believed and he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 25 of the arms act also. the prosecution case about recovery of the watch belonging to dayal singh in pursuance of the information furnished by prithvi appellant was believed and he was held guilty ..... sustainable.9. the learned trial judge has not believed the prosecution version that the gun article 2 belonged to dayal singh. the conviction under section 26 of the arms act is based on the testimony of the investigating officer, abdul gani (p.w.25) and jangir singh (p.w.5). the gun article 2 according to the prosecution .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-15-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)350
..... other hand, the defer dant tenant should have been allowed adjustment of the said amount of rs. 648/- which had already been deposited by him under section 19a of the act, while passing the decree for the amount of arrears of rent in the suit. as no other amount towards rent was due except the aforesaid amount of rs. 648/- ..... against the tenant in the suit. although the courts below allowed adjustment of the said amount of rs. 648/-while passing the order under section 13(3) of the act and also allowed the defendant tenant relief under section 13 (6) by dismissing the suit for eviction taking into consideration is the said deposit of arrears of rent under section ..... not in dispute that the aforesaid amount of rs. 648/- towards the arrears of rent was deposited by the defendant tenant in the court under section 19a of the act on different dates. it is also not in controversy now between the patties that the amount of rent for the aforesaid period was neither paid or deposited by the tenant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-23-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)358
..... for 7 years under section 452 i.p.c.(iv) rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under section 148 i.p.c.(v) rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under 25 arms act.(4) balbir singh(i) imprisonment for life under section 302/149 i.p.c.(ii) rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under section 307, 149 i.p.c.(iii) rigorous imprisonment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-18-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)401
D.L. Mehta, J.1. These four writ petitions have been filed by the Railway employees. Learned Counsel for both the parties agree that these writ petitions should be disposed of at the admission stage, as additional submissions are not necessary Since common question of law has been raised in these writ petitions and argued, so these are being decided by one order, as prayed. It would be necessary first to mention the facts from one writ petition in order to appreciate the controversy. In SB Civil Writ petition No. 1809 of of 1981 (Gokul Chand v. The Union of India and Ors.), the petitioner was appointed originally as Substitute Fitter (vide Ex. 1) dated Feburary 28, 1976. Thereafter, he was promoted as Skilled Fitter. The petitioner as well as the other persons, who have filed the writ petitions, were promoted to the post of High Skilled Fitter Grade II (vide Annexure R-l) dated April 1, 1982 In Annexure R-1, it has specifically been mentioned that the petitioner and others who have fai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-19-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN78
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City Jaipur, dated 13-10-1981 upholding the order of the learned Munsiff Jaipur East, Jaipur dated 22-9-1981 dismissing the plaintiff's-application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.2. One Govind Lal obtained an ex parte decree for evidence against Kailash Chand defendant-non-petitioner. Kailash Chand defendant non-petitioner filed an appeal against the decree for eviction and obtained a stay order from the appellate court on 7-9-1978, which was communicated to the trial court on 16-9-1978. Inspite of the above stay order, it appears that Govind Lal obtained possession of the suit shop in execution of the decree on 16-1-1979. Kailash Chand filed an application for restitution of possession. But the same was disallowed by the executing court. Kailash Chand, thereafter, filed a revision in this Court and the revision was contested by Govind Lal. This Court, however, on 6-5-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-16-1982
Reported in : 1982WLN81
..... 7th november, 1966, when his interest in the property bad already come to an end. the principle contained in sub-section (2) of section 18 of the evidence act is based on a solitary rule that admissions must be made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements. a vendor after selling the property in ..... opinion that such admission is not binding on the defendant-respondent no. 1. it is clearly laid down under sub-section (2) of section 18 of the evidence act that such admissions are only relevant if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements. the defendant respondent no. 2 had already ..... on the site there was only one wall and not two walls separately, but the learned first appellate court wrongly brushed aside the same by observing that it should act be used as evidence itself because otherwise the court becomes a witness and a witness cannot be a judge himself.7. learned counsel for the respondent argued that in .....
Tag this Judgment!