Himachal Pradesh Court April 1984 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.
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Loki Nand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1272
T.R. Handa, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Chamba vide which the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent Loki Nand, of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter called 'The Act').2. The facts of this case show that a sample of mustard oil was purchased by the Food Inspector from the respondent for purpose of analysis. This sample was purchased on 17th Dec, 1977. It was purchased and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The sample after its purchase was made into three parts and each part was sealed in a separate bottle. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for purposes of analysis and the other two parts were sent to the Local (Health) Authority in terms of Section 11 of the Act.' The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample was adulterated and hence the respondent was prosecute...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shakti Parshad
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1812
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The learned Sessions Judge having found the respondent guilty of an offence punishable. under Section 304 Part-11 of the Penal Code, instead of passing an order of sentence, directed that he be released on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of three years and that he may appear and receive sentence if and when called upon during the said period. The order was passed in the purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 360 of the Criminal P.C. 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'.2. Section 360, Sub-section (1) and (10) read as follows:(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous...
Roshan Lal and anr. Vs. Dalipa
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP8
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The appellants are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the respondent for actual possession of a specified extent of land situate in Tikka Chamlehar, Mauza Thehar, Tehsil Kangra, District Kangra. The suit has been decreed concurrently by awarding symbolic joint possession. -Hence the present second appeal.2. The case of the respondent was that he was the son of one Pari, widow of Punnu, who died intestate in Jan. 1959, leaving him behind as her sole heir. According to the respondent, she had l/36th share in four different holdings described in the plaint and the relief as to possession was based on his right to succeed to the land falling to her share in those different holdings. The suit was resisted by the appellants, who are the collaterals of Punnu, on the ground that the respondent was not the son of Pari, that he was the son of one Khitu and that, as such, he could no...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›