Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2012CrLJ3330
R.S. Chauhan, J. Through this jail appeal, Nathu Lal and Hansaram have challenged the judgment dated 19.04.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur, whereby they have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 11.06.2005, Manna (P.W.3) submitted a written report (Ex.P/9) at Police Station Sayra wherein he had claimed that they are three brothers, namely Nathu, Lachha and he himself. He further claimed that in 2002 his brother, Lachha, had committed murder of their parents. Thus, he was sent to jail. After he was released from the jail, Lachha had become mentally weak. His wife had also left him and gone in Nata. He further claimed that on 05.06.2005, around 9:00 AM when he himself came back from his in-laws' place, he asked his elder brother, Nathu, and his cousin brother, Hansa as to the whereabouts of Lachha. They told him that on Saturday Lachha had started throwing the roof til...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2012CrLJ2552
1. This criminal Misc. Petition No. 786 of 2011 under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.1.2011 of Special Court Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Kota nd quashing the proceedings pending before the ACJM No.4 in case No. 04/08 wherein the same relief has been sought by the non-petitioners by way of application under sections 12, 22, 23, 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 whereas the application for interim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. has already been decided by the Family Court vide order dated 9.5.2008. 2. Brief facts of this criminal misc. petition are that the petitioner got married to the respondent No.1 on 13.5.2004 as per the Islamic shariat, known as 'Nikah'. After consuming the marriage they lived together happily. A child was born out of their wedlock. But the relations between them could not be maintained for long and began quarreling after two years. The wife of the petitioner began to stay at her father's house without an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2012CrLJ3326
R.S. Chauhan J. Kishmat Singh, Sattar Khan and Smt. Kamla, have filed three different appeals before this Court challenging the judgment dated 18.12.2007 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta, whereby the learned Judge has convicted them for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and for offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. For the former offence, they have been sentenced to life imprisonment, and have been imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and further directed to suffer six months if rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For the latter offence, they have been sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, fined with Rs.2,000/- and further directed to undergo two of months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment by this court. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 09.02.2006, around 2:00 PM...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Mathur, J. By the judgment impugned 21.8.2008 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi convicted the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence as under:- u/S.302 IPC – Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-. Further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. u/S.449 IPC – Ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-. Further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of this appeal is that on 1.4.2008 a written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kalandri by complainant Shri Oparam (PW-1) stating therein that in the morning of the same day at about 09:30 AM his real nephew Krishna son of Jagtaji came to him and after having certain usual domestic deliberations entered in the house of his another nephew Laxman. Afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Arun Mishra, CJ. 1. Reference has been made by the Single Bench on 8.11.2011 with respect to the grant of first regular parole to the petitioner Shambhu Dayal, who has been convicted for committing offence under section 8 read with section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lac. The question referred by the Single Bench is to the effect whether the order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the Single Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No.5711/2011 is the obtaining law or whether a convict after having undergone the statutory period of sentence is entitled to be considered for parole both regular and permanent without the question of payment of fine being reckoned. 2. When the arguments on the aforesaid question were being heard by the Division Bench, it was considered necessary to consider the aspect whether in the cases where convict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2012CrLJ2115
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1674 of 2011 under section 482 Cr.P.c. against the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Bundi in Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2010 against the order dated 7.8.2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed in Complaint No. 249 of 2010 was confirmed and the revision petition was rejected. REPORTABLE BY THE COURT : 1. This criminal misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.c. against the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Bundi in Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2010 against the order dated 7.8.2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed in Complaint No. 249 of 2010 was confirmed and the revision petition was rejected. 2. Brief facts of this criminal misc. petition are that a complaint was filed against the respondent No.2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi for the offence under sections 500 and 504 IPC. It was stated in the complaint that the non-petitioner No.2 used t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Heard on the question of admission. Petitioners have questioned vires of Rule 5(6) of the Rajasthan Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transpiration and Storage) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2007'). Petitioners have submitted that petitioners are Small Scale Industries dealing in processing of minerals in Industrial Area/RIICO Area or Trading of minerals at Beawar, District Ajmer. Petitioners are registered as SSI Units with the District Industries Centre, Ajmer/Beawar. Petitioners purchased raw mineral from mining operators, who have been granted lease's of mines. The raw minerals felspar, quartz and other mineral are supplied / sold to the petitioners along with 'Rawanna' i.e. a form of permit certifying the mineral taken out from the mines leased by the Department of Mines and Geology and payment of royalty on the mineral. In turn, the raw mineral felspar, quartz and other mineral are processed/converted into powder by grinding and supplied/sold in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. These three petitions were connected with the S.B.C.W.P. 999/2011, as per the orders passed by the co-ordinate bench and therefore were heard together. However, during the course of arguments, it had transpired that the parties and proceedings of Petition No. 999/2003 were different from the present ones and, therefore, the said petition is being disposed of by separate order. In the present three petitions, the petitioners are different, however, the respondent bank in the capacity of a mortgagee, is the same, and the other respondents are the mortgagors/guarantors who had mortgaged the properties in question by way of security in respect of the credit facilities availed of by one M/S Vipul Gems. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. At the out-set, it may be stated that though the subject matter and the parties in S.B.C.W.P. 999/2011 were different, the S.B.C.W.P. 1928/2011 was directed to be connected with the Petition No. 999/2011 at the request of learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. The petitioner (Plaintiff) has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jhunjhunu, in Civil Suit No.35 of 2005, whereby his application filed under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to draw presumption against a patta of 4.10.1948 on the ground of it being more than 30 years old, had been rejected. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Plaintiff filed a suit through his registered Attorney Mohan Lal, seeking declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendant. The Plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he had purchased a plot admeasuring 471.6 sq.yrd. by way of registered sale-deed on 19.9.1984. The dimensions and surroundings whereof were mentioned in para Nos.1 and 4 of the plaint. His case was that he left 12 ft. land for Mata Mandir and the remaining land he divided in two plots of 54x30 sq.ft and 54x24.4 sq.ft., and the plot admeasu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') challenging the order dated 3.8.07 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Chabra, District Baran (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Case No. 45/05 whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the appellant under Section 12 of the said Act. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 29.4.04. The appellant-applicant made an application being No. 45/05 before the trial court seeking annulment of the said marriage under Section 12 of the said Act on the ground that the marriage was solemnised by committing fraud. The said application was presented on 8.11.05 by the appellant-applicant and, therefore, the trial court dismissed the said application by the impugned order, on the ground that the application having ...
Tag this Judgment!