Himachal Pradesh Court June 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.
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ105
ORDERH.S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner was found guilty by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan of the offence under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act (the Act in short) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.2. A few facts relevant to the case may be stated. On Dec. 20, 1979, a Food Inspector visited the shop of Chhajoo Ram and Mohar Singh at Solan and found the petitioner conducting the business of the shop. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of gur on payment of Rs. 1.20 P. as its price. A sample was sent for analysis and the Public Analyst found the gur to be adulterated. The total sugars (inverted sugars) were found deficient by 7.5% of the minimum prescribed standard. The petitio...
Jau Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP25b
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. Rule. To be heard today. The learned Advocate General waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondents.The petitioner is an 82 year old man whose property situated in village Pulbahal, Tehsil Chopal, district Shimla, was notified for acquisition by a notification published on January 7, 1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The requisite declaration under Section 6 was made by a notification published on Aug. 26, 1978. The award under Section 11 was made on June 20, 1984. A copy of the award has been placed on the record of this proceeding and it contains a recital that the possession of the property was admittedly taken in the year 1972. Under what circumstances the possession was taken nearly six years before the property was even notified for acquisiton is not clear.2. Since the petitioner was not awarded compensation, although possession was taken from him as far back as 1972, he sent an application ...
Kesar Singh Guleria Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1202
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. Rule. To be heard today.2. The learned Advocate General waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondents,3. The petitioner is a convict undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment. He is incarcerated in the Model Central Jail, Nahan. According to the official version, he has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 8 years, 7 months and 6 days and total imprisonment, inclusive of remission, for a period of 13 years. 9 months and 16 days as on June 20, 1984. The petitioner has, inter alia, complained herein regarding two matters : first, non-consideration of his case for premature release in light of the policy of the State Government on the subject and, secondly, non-consideration of his case for being released on parole. So far as the first complaint is concerned, pursuant to an order made in a Writ Petition instituted earlier by the petitioner, the State Government is required to consider the. case for the premature release of the petitioner in the mon...
Sant Ram Vs. Faquiroo and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP10
H.S. Thakur, J.1. The appellant has preferred this second appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan and Sirmur Districts, affirming the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh.2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the appeal may be stated. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he was owner in possession of the land in suit and that the respondents were threatening to interfere in his possession. It may be pointed out at the outset that respondent-No. 1 has admitted that he had been dispossessed by theappellant and on that account he has not appeared in the Court to defend the appeal. The appeal is now limited to the dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 2, Shri Bachan Singh. The suit was resisted by the respondents on the ground that they were in possession of the land as tenants. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 is a tenant ...
Philip John Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-04-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ397
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. Rule. To be heard today.2. The learned Advocate-General waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondents.3. The petitioner is a prisoner undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the Model Central Jail at Nahan. It appears that he was brought and lodged in the Sub-Jail, Kaithu, at Shimla for undergoing medical treatment at the Snowdon Hospital, Shimla, sometime in the month of April 1984. On April 11, 1984 the custody of the petitioner was handed over to two police constables named Thina Ram and Hem Raj at about 10 A.M. for taking him to the Snowdon Hospital for medical check-up. Those two constables handcuffed the petitioner while taking him to the Hospital and even while he was medically examined by Dr. M.L. Sharma, Associate Professor, Department of E.N.T., Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla, he was in handcuffs. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that when he was produced before Dr. M.L. Sharma, he directed that the handcuffs be removed. However...
High Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Sunder Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1986HP47
ORDERP.D. Desai, C.J.1. Rule. To be heard today.2. Mr. Chhabil Dass, waives service of the rule on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. A. K. Goel, waives service of the rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 6.3. This is a writ petition registered in exercise of the suo motu powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The first and second respondents were the appellants and the third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents were the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 127-S/13 of 1982 which was instituted in the District Court, Solan and Sirmur Districts at Solan on Mar. 10, 1982. The appeal thereafter reached hearing before the learned Additional District Judge from time to time. It appears that the arguments were finally heard on Aug. 23, 1983 and the case was adjourned to Aug. 25, 1983 for pronouncing judgment: The case appears to have been adjourned from time to time thereafter for pronouncing judgment and finally it stood adjourned to Sept. 21, 1983. In the order-sheet ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›