Himachal Pradesh Court November 2001 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. Amar Nath
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ495
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. Heard learned counsel. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8-5-1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur, in case No. 33/2 of 1995. By means of impugned judgment respondent was acquitted of the offences under Sections 279/337 of the I.P.C., hence this appeal against acquittal.2. In the instant case accident is admitted, spot as it existed and shown in the photographs is also admitted by the respondent. Similarly MLCs of injured driver PW-8 as well as Krishnu Ram being Exs. PA and PB have also been admitted. Admitted photographs are there on the record.3. Prosecution case as made out from the record is that Charan Singh PW-8 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was driving Maruti Van bearing registration No. HPY-814. On 5-10-1992 he was plying this van from Bilaspur to Jawalji along with passengers. According to him passengers were Constable Ramesh Kumar and one Krishnu Ram. When it was at Dalli on way from Ghagas to Ghumarwin, ...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1880
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The present appeal through Jail has been preferred by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the accused, against the judgment dated 7/8-4-1998 of the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Kullu in Case No. 12 of 1997 whereby the accused has been convicted of the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac. In default of payment of fine, the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.2. Briefly, the prosecution story may be thus stated. On 6-12-1996 at about 11.45 a.m., PW-9 Sub Inspector Jagdish Chand, the then Station House Officer of Police Station, Banjar, received a secret information about the presence of a stranger (accused) at Bus Stand, Banjar carrying a bag and that there was a possibility of 'Charas' being carried by him. Finding the information reliable, PW...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of H.P.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ498
M.R. Verma, J.1. The appellant-accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') by this appeal, has assailed the judgment dated 18-8-1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala whereby the accused has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 366, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW-2) daughter of Nirmla Devi (PW-1) and Jagar Nath (PW-3) was, on 23-3-1996 present in her house in village Sadwan. The accused and Ishwar Dass alias Sheru (who was a co-accused before the trial Court and will be referr...
Mast Ram Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1616
ORDERM.R. Verma, J.1. This petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (here-after referred to as 'the Code') and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 1-7-2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopal dated 1-11-1999 granting maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month has been affirmed and the revision-petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order of the Judicial Magistrate has been dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopal claiming maintenance from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month on the grounds that the respondent who is married wife of the petitioner and have four surviving children out of the wedlock is being ill-treated b...
Badi Ram Vs. R.S. Company
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2002HP150
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. The appellant is the defendant whereas the respondent is the plaintiff and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. The defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 21-8-2000 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the decree and judgment dated 7-3-2000 of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, was set-aside. The Sub Judge had dismissed the suit as not maintainable being hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. In the appeal before the District Judge, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC for additional evidence to produce the original registration certificate of the plaintiff-firm which was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- and the certificate of registration of the plaintiff firm was admitted in evidence as Ext. PX. After admitting the additional evidence, the suit of the...
Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ531
ORDERM.R. Verma, J. 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 4-9-2000 whereby a charge has been ordered to be framed against the petitioner and others under Sections 452, 354 and 506, I.P.C. and has been framed on the same day.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is an army personnel, therefore, it was mandatory for the trial Court to comply with the provisions of Section 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') but despite his request and informing the trial Court the said provisions and the relevant rules were not complied with and no written notice was given to his Commanding Officer to exercise the option for the trial of the petitioner for the said offences by the Court-martial.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent -- State and have also gone through the material on record.4. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a mili...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›