Himachal Pradesh Court May 1964 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Amar Chand and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965HP11,1965CriLJ169
Om Parkash, J.1. The facts, involved in this appeal, by the Union of India, against an order of the learned Magistrate First Class, Mandi, acquitting the respondents, of an offence, under Sections 3/112, Motor Vehicles Act, are simple. Truck No. HIM-462, which belonged to the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, had met with an accident on 17.1.62, near Kangu, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. Hardyal Singh, who was one of the occupants of the truck, had sustained injuries, as a result of the accident, and had, subsequently, died in the Hospital. The two respondents along with other persons, were hauled up, in connection with the accident. The allegations of the prosecution were that Amar Chand respondent was taking some members of his family to Salapper bridge in the truck and was driving the truck himself, that he was driving the truck rashly and negligently and was unable to negotiate a curve near Kangu, that the truck had slipped into a nullah and Hardyal Singh had sustained...
Sham Singh Vs. State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965HP16,1965CriLJ442
ORDEROm Prakash, J.C.1. This is a reference, made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur, Sessions Division.2. Sham Singh, petitioner, and others, were proceeded against, under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. Before any evidence was recorded in the proceedings, the petitioner, under Sub-section (8) of Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code, intimated to the Magistrate that he intended to make an application for getting the case transferred to some other Court. The Magistrate adjourned the case to enable the petitioner to move the transfer application. He burdened the petitioner with costs of Rs. 28/-, as the expenses of the prosecution witnesses, who were present, but were not examined, because of the adjournment of the case. The petitioner went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge, against the order, directing payment of Rs. 28/-, as costs. The learned Sessions Judge has recommended that the ...
Major Punnu Ram Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1964HP29
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C. 1. This revision-petition has arisen out of an application for the refund of court-fee of Rs. 94/-.2. The petitioner had, on 6-5-63, instituted a suit, in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur, against Bishan Dass, for the recovery of Rs. 812.80 nP. on the basis of a promissory note. On 9-5-63, the counsel for the petitioner, put in an application, for the refund of the court-fee, paid on the plaint. Both the application and the suit were dismissed, on 2-7-63, in default of appearance. On 5.7.63, a second application, purporting to be under Section 13, Court-fees Act and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for the refund of court-fee, was filed by the counsel for the petitioner. The allegations, made in the application, were as follows: --3. The petitioner is in military service and was posted at Kalka. He had entrusted the papers, for the institution of the suit, against Bishan Dass, to his counsel, with the instructions that it was likely that Bisha...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›