Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-14-1994
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1345; I(1995)DMC350; 1994(2)WLN653
..... . in letters ex. p. 4 and ex. p. 5, appellant bhakhar ram insisted hip father-in-law that in future, he should directly communicate with him and not through the mediator ganesh ram. in these letters, there is no mention about any demand for dowry or about any harassment to deceased. in letters ex. p. 4 and ex. p. 5, appellant ..... was solemnized with appellant bhakhar ram in dec., 1986; that the son of his maternal uncle ganesh ram, who is also brother-in-law of appellant bhakhar ram, was the mediator in the said marriage. he clearly deposes that there was no demand for dowry on the part of the appellants in the marriage. however, in november, 1987, when he had ..... her tainted testimony. according to him, pw 2 ganesh ram, who is the cousin of pw 6 bhanwarlal and brother-in-law of appellant bhakhar ram and who was the mediator in arranging the marriage of the deceased, as also pw 8 bhoma ram resident of village hadda have not supported the prosecution case. pw 3 smt. nirmala has also not .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-08-1994
Reported in : 1994(2)WLC47; 1994(1)WLN96
r.s. verma, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties finally at the admission stage itself.2. devendra kumar lodged a criminal complaint in the court of addl. chief judicial magistrate, hanumangarh on 7.12.1993 with the averments that the petitioner's father ramlal had a brother jaymal ram. sharda devi is daughter of aforesaid jaymal ram. jaymal ram was in indigent circumstances and hence ramlal got sharda devi educated at various institutions. because of indigence of jaymal ram. ramlal got sharda devi married. ramlal died on 18.11.91. sharda devi and her other closed relatives, taking advantage of the fact that sharda devi was got educated by ramlal and her marriage was also got performed by ramlal laid a claim that sharda devi was daughter or ramlal and on this basis got a fraudulent mutation entered with a view to deprive the real heirs of ramlal from his agricultural land. the details of the fraudulent act have been detailed in the complaint.3. the learned magistrate instead of taking cognizance upon the complaint sent the same to s.h.o., hanumangarh town for investigating the offence under section 156(3) of the criminal procedure code. the s.h.o. hanumangarh town registered f.i.r. no. 543/93 for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120b, i.p.c. and commenced investigation. aggrieved, sharda devi has come to this court with a prayer that the f.i.r. registered against her and the other co-accused persons should be quashed and no further investigation may be .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-19-1994
Reported in : 1995CriLJ616; 1995(2)WLC515; 1994(2)WLN540; 1994(2)WLN545
orderrajendra saxena, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this petition under section 482 cr pc has been preferred against the order d/- 15-4-93 passed by learned addl. sessions judge, no. 2, jodhpur, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and affirmed the order d/- 23-10-92 passed by the learned addl. district magistrate, city jodhpur under section 146 cr. pc attaching the subject matter of dispute namely agricultural land bearing khasra no. 35 comprising 3 bigha 14 biswas situated in village poonjla teh. jodhpur distt. jodhpur.3. i have heard shri m.l. chaudary learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public prosecutor shri thakur and shri bhatt learned counsel for non-petitioner no. 2 and carefully perused the relevant record. the main contention of shri chaudary is that the disputed land is in the continuous cultivation possession of the petitioners, that the same is part of khasra no. 35, total area 9 bigha 14 biswas, that the disputed land was never demarcated and possession thereof was not handed to non-petitioner no. 2 and that the learned additional district magistrate without any sufficient reason arbitrarily issued the preliminary order d/- 25-8-92 and thereafter on the application of non-petitioner no. 2 illegally passed the order of attachment on 23-10-93. according to him, no notice of the application filed by the non-petitioner no. 2 under section 146(1) cr pc was served on petitioner no. 4 yudhister. he has .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-18-1994
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2513; 1994(1)WLN503
b.r. arora, j. 1. these three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 6-10-1989, passed by the sessions judge, jodhpur, by which the learned sessions judge convicted and sentenced appellant ram narain alias narain for the offences under sections 302 and 447 i.p.c. and co-accused ram gopal alias gopal for the offences under sections 302/34 and 447 i.p.c.2. the prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused-appellant ram narain along with co-accused ram gopal alias gopal, committed the murder of one madan lal (aged about 80 years) r/o nandiya khurd in the intervening night of 20/21st september, 1986, at about 1.00 a.m., in the dhani of pw 4 kana ram and pw 11 mohan lal. the incident was witnessed by pw 4 kana ram and pw 11 mohan lal. the report of the incident was lodged at police station, kherapa by pw 4 kana ram at about 9.00 a.m. on 22-9-1986. the accused-appellant and the co-accused were tried by the learned sessions judge, jodhpur. the learned sessions judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-'appellant, as stated above. while convicting and sentencing the appellant, the learned sessions judge placed reliance over the statements of the two eye witnesses, viz., pw 4 kana ram and pw 11 mohan lal, which were supported by the statement of pw 2 arjun ram and pw 5 bhanwar lal. the learned sessions judge, also, relied upon the statement of pw 1 dr. vijay kumar and the recoveries of the blood-stained dhariya, recovered on the information and at the instance .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-04-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Raj130
milap chandra jain, j. 1. this appeal has been filed against the order of the learned district judge, bikaner dated march 25, 1992 by which he has dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's application moved under order 39, rules 1 and 2 and section 151, c.p.c. for adinterim injunction, seeking stay of the execution of the decree passed in suit no. 95/87 against him on 10-9-87.2. on may 18, 1991, the plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for declaration and redemption against the defendant-respondent in the court of the district judge, bikaner with the averments in short, as follows: he was in need of some money. he approached the defendant to lend it. he told him (plaintiff) that he had to mortgage his house but a sale-deed and a rent-note have to be executed for it in his favour instead of a mortgage-deed. accordingly, he executed a sale-deed showing sale consideration of rs. 10,000/- and rent-note showing monthly rent @ rs. 150/-. the defendant also executed a document agreeing to resell the house within a year. out of the sale consideration of rs. 10.000/-, rupees 5.000/- only were paid in cash and remaining amount was adjusted towards old debts outstanding against him. all the expenses required in executing the aforesaid two documents were borne by him. mutation has not been effected in favour of the defendant in the government and municipal records in respect of the suit property. he tendered to the defendant money several times with a request to reconvey his house but the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-09-1994
Reported in : 1994(2)WLN179
m.r. calla, j.1. this criminal appeal under section 374(2) cr. p.c. is directed against the conviction and sentence awarded to the seven accused-appellants by the learned additional sessions judge, deeg in sessions case no. 7/92 (43/91, 37/84) passed on 27th august, 1992. the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:(i)accused appellant hari singh was convicted and sentenced for offence under section 302 ipc to life imprisonment, fine of rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall have further to undergo for 6 months s.i. for offence under section 148 ipc to 6 months r.i. fine of rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine 1 month s.i. for offence under section 447 ipc to 3 months r.i. fine of rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine 1 month s.i. for offence under section 324/149 ipc to 6 months ri, fine of rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine 2 months s.i. for offence under section 323/149 ipc to 1 month r.i. for offence under section 325/149 ipc to 6 months r.i. fine of rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine 4 months s.i. and for offence under section 3/25 arms act to 6 months r.i. fine of rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine he shall have further to undergo 1 month s.i.(ii) accused-appellants bachchu &| mangal were convicted and sentenced for offence under section 302/149 ipc to l.i. fine of rs. 5000/- and in default of payment fine 6 months s.i. for offence under section 148 ipc to 6 months r.i. fine of rs. 500/- and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-26-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Raj163; 1995(1)WLC344; 1994(2)WLN411
gokal chand mital, c.j.1. on14th of december, 1968, surajmal agreed to sell house in dispute which is part of a house known as 'chhota makan' for a sum of rs. 18,000/- to madan mohan. pursuant to the agreement of sale, madan mohan filed a suit for specific performance of contract and the suit was decreed. pursuant to the decree, sale deed was executed on 26th october, 1970.2. gouri shanker, who is step-brother of surajmal, filed suit for pre-emption on 18th may, 1971 on the ground that he was a co-sharer with the vendor in regard to the houre sold and under section 6 of the rajasthan preemption act, 1966, he was entitled to the decree of possession by pre-emption. the suit was contested on the ground that there was no relationship of co-sharer between the plaintiff and the vendor.3. on the contest of the parties, two issues were framed, the english versions of which are as follows :--'1. whether the plaintiff is a co-sharer in the property and so he has got a right of pre-emption? 2. whether there is a joint wall on which the slabs of the both the houses rest and if so due to this, the plaintiff has got a right of preemption?' 4. after evidence was led, the trial court as well as the learned single judge of this court dismissed the suit and this is special appeal by the pre-emptor.5. the issues goes to show that under first issue it had to be seen whether the plaintiff and vendor are co-sharers of the property sold or not and even if they were not found to be co-sharers, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-28-1994
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1466; 1995(1)WLC281
r.r. yadav, j.1. this appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15-10-1987 passed by the learned sessions judge, sri ganganagar in sessions case no. 16 of 1986 by which he found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 302, ipc, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's r. i.2. the prosecution case at the trial was that pw 1, ramesh kumar dhankani, advocate father of deceased chandra shekhar alias chandu was present at his residence on 20-10-1985 at about 5.40 p.m. pw 5, raj kumar came to him at his residence and informed that his son chandra shekhar was killed by appellant-ganpat ram r/o naya chak by causing gun shot injuries in the collectorate court compound. upon the aforesaid information, father of the deceased-ramesh kumar dhankani (pw 1) along with raj kumar (pw 5) rushed up at collectorate court corn-pound where madan murari aasthana, advocate (pw 9), satish kumar (pw 4) and alma ram (pw 10) were standing at the scene of occurrence and dead-body of his son chandra shekhar was lying in between the wooden plank. madan murari (pw 9), atma ram (pw 10) and satish kumar (pw 4) told him that today at about 4.00 p.m. appellant-ganpat ram and deceased-chandra shekhar were gambling, in which ganpat ram lost his golden ring in gambling to deceased. appellant ganpat ram asked the deceased to return his golden ring and he promised to pay money for the same after holidays but the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-24-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Raj136; 89CompCas213(Raj); 1995(3)WLC737
orderarun madan, j. 1. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner had opened a bank-account with the rajasthan state industrial cooperative bank ltd., jaipur (respondent no. 2 herein) and the petitioner was given over-draft facilities by the bank up to rs. 40,000/-. it has been contended in the writ petition that some employees of the bank had committed forgery and the petitioner's account was also fabricated though the said allegations have been denied by the petitioner. a report was also lodged with the police by the bank and on that basis a criminal case vide fir no. 273/83 was instituted with p.s. ashok nagar, jaipur in respect of offences under sections 420/467/468/120b and 471, ipc. since some of the bank employees were also involved in the embezzlement, proceedings under section 74 of therajasthan co-operative societies act, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the act') were also initiated against the bank employees as well as against the petitioner. it has been further contended in the writ petition that before initiating proceedings under section 74 of the act investigating audit was done by the department and audit report was submitted to the bank by the 3 auditors, who were so appointed to conduct the audit. it was on the basis of the audit report that proceedings under section 74 of the act were initiated and that the petitioner was also notified to participate in the said proceedings. in pursuance of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-31-1994
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ278Raj
arun madan, j.1. this petition has been filed before this court under article 226 of the constitution of india in the matter of alleged violation of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india read with rajasthan (recruitment of dependents of government servants dying while in service) rules 1975 and in the matter of rajasthan service rules 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules')2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is an adopted son of (late) shri ram niwas sharma who expired on december 13, 1972 during his service tenure after remaining ill for a long period. the said shri ram niwas sharma was posted at tahsil sikrai as class iv employee before his demise. he was appointed on the said post on june 14, 1943 and his date of birth was june 12, 1918. it has been further contended in the writ petition that the natural father of the petitioner was shri hijari lal sharma s/o. (late) shri ram dhan sharma who expired on may 9, 1962. late shri ram dhan shrma was the elder brother of (late) shri ram niwas sharma who was unmarried. it was further contended in the petition that the petitioner was living with him and was wholly dependent on him for his day to day expenses, residence and education after the demise of his natural father and that the petitioner looked after the welfare of shri ram niwas and that he had executed a will in favour of the petitioner on october 13, 1970 which was registered in the office of .....Tag this Judgment!