Himachal Pradesh Court May 1975 Judgments

Baldev Singh Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1976CriLJ758

D.B. Lal, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the Judgment of the Special Judge, Kangra wherein the appellant Baldev Singh has been convicted under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I. P-Code as well as Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has been sentenced to an imprisonment tin the rising of the Court and to pay Rs. 400/-as fine under each count, in default to undergo imprisonment for four months under each count.2. After the appeal was heard, the judgment was pronounced on March 24, 1975 which was to the effect that the appeal was dismissed but modification was made in the sentence of fine awarded inasmuch as the total fine was not to exceed Rs. 600/-. At present I am proposing to give my reasons for that judgment.3. The case of the prosecution was that between the year 1965 and 1967 the accused Baldev Singh was posted as Forest Guard in Kihar forest (Chamba). While performing the duty of Forest Guard, he collected a sum of Rs. 1,164.62 P as grazing fee fro...

Devinder Singh and ors. Vs. the State of H.P. Through the Secretary El ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1976HP19

R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Bench:--'Whether this Court which has passed the judgment which is challenged in the L. P. A. by the affected respondents is competent to entertain and hear the stay application against its own orders ?'2. A writ petition was decided by my brother Thakur as a single Judge. He allowed the petition and directed the State and the Chief Electoral Officer to treat the petitioners as regular employees of the Election Department and not to revert them. Against his order a Letters Patent Appeal has been filed in this Court, and in that appeal the present application has been made for staying the operation of the order allowing the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal came on for admission before myself and D.B. Lal. J. The latter declared that he would not like to be a member of the Bench hearing the appeal, and accordingly an order was made that the case be listed before a Bench of which he was not a memb...

Puran Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERChet Ram Thakur, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification No. 47-4/47-HORT. SECTT, dated the 7th April, 1972, whereby the Government expressed its intention for acquisition of land for public purpose, namely for the construction of building at Naubahar, Simla-2. This notification was issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). The owners of the property are Sarvshri Gopal and Surinder sons of Shri Sehaj Ram, Radio Mechanic, Middle Bazar Simla. The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant of portion of the building. According to him he is running a canteen in a portion of the premises of the building for the last more than 9 years on payment of rent to its owners. The property has since been acquired and the owners have received compensation. The petitioner, it appears, has not been paid any compensation for his interest as an occupier of the premises. According to him, he raised objections to the sai...

Kundan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1976CriLJ587

ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision is brought from the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in a case under Section 408 of the I. P. Code whereby agreeing with the Magistrate First Class, the petitioner Kundan Lai has been convicted under that section and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rupees 1,000/-,2. The prosecution case was that Kundan Lal was Secretary-cum-Salesman of Kunt Bheo Go-operative Society and as such used to be entrusted with the amount belonging to that Society. He was also maintaining the cash-book of the Society. One Hem Raj Gupta checked the accounts, and found that a sum of Rupees 5.490.62 no was short. The accused was given a week's time to make up the balance. He did not do so and was relieved of his duties on 23-8-1967. Subsequently a report was instituted against the accused and he was prosecuted for the offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The accused pleaded not guilty and asserted...