Himachal Pradesh Court November 1979 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.
Mehta Brothers Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ289
ORDERH.S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner has filed these petitions challenging the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeals, on 12th July, 1977 affirming the orders of forfeiture of timber passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla, on 10th August, 1976 in respect of offences alleged to have been committed under Section 41 read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act by the drivers of two different trucks. Two separate challans were filed by the police against the drivers of truck Nos. HPS 982 and HP'S 399 for the offences under Section 41 read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioner is the same in both these petitions and claims to be the owner of the forfeited timber. Since a common question of law and facts arises in both the petitions, therefore, both these petitions can conveniently be disposed by a common judgment.2. Briefly, the facts of Criminal Petition No. 15 of 1978 are that on 5th August, 1978 the police intercepted truck No. HPS 982...
Kanhu Ram and ors. Vs. Durga Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ518
ORDERT.U. Mehta, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the above referred petitioners against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, overruling the petitioner's objections to the issue of process on the ground that the respondent, who is a private complainant, had no locus standi to initiate criminal proceedings for the offence contemplated by Section 7 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 which is re-named as Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976.2. The facts of the case are that on 14th March, 1978, there was quarrel between one Rarnka and the present petitioner No. 14 Babu Ram. As a result of this quarrel, Ramka was sought to be prosecuted, and in those proceedings, the present respondent stood surety for Ramka. Ramka is admittedly a Harijan, a member of the scheduled caste, and hence, is considered to be an untouchable by some high caste persons.3. The allegation of the respondent-complainant, who is himself a Rajput by caste, says that on 26-3-1978 the presen...
Jai Prakash Sharma Vs. Jagdamba Parsad and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ889
T.U. Mehta, C.J.1. The appellant Jai Parkash Sharma had filed a private complaint against the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The incident which is referred to in the complaint is said to have taken place about six years ago, i.e. on 6th October, 1973 at 10-30 A. M. According to the complainant, respondents 1, 2 and 3 had caught him and had given 'blows on his body with an electric-type hunter'.2. After the process was issued, the matter came up before the learned Magistrate on 18-12-1973 when the complainant Jai Parkash was present in person and the respondents Nos. 1 and 3, Jagdamba Prasad and Mata Prasad, were also present in person. However, the respondent No. 2 Shakti Prasad was not present and the summons which was issued to him was also not received back, served or unserved. The court, therefore, ordered that fresh address of respondent Shakt...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›