Himachal Pradesh Court January 2009 Judgments

Dhian Singh and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1977

ORDERV.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a criminal revision filed by the petitioners under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 7-9-2002, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, dated 23-6-2000, vide which the petitioners were held guilty under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the petitioners were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.On realization of the fine, an amount of Rs, 25,000/- was payable as compensation to the LRs of the deceased.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30-11-1986, at 6.00 p.m., a rapat was lodged with the police by one Rattan Singh that on 30-11-1986, at about 11....

indofil Chemical Company Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC284

Surinder Singh, J.1. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by the petitioner company for quashing and setting aside the complaint filed by the respondent and consequent proceedings, pending against them under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1972, in short the 'Act,' in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi.2. Admittedly the petitioner 'M/s. Indofil Chemical Company' is a manufacturer of insecticides and pesticides, including the one known as Mencozeb. The company sells its product throughout the country including the Himachal Pradesh through its distributors and retailers.3. 'M/s. K.D. Seed House', Shop No. 10, Zero Chowk Sunder Nagar, District Mandi (H.P.) is the authorised dealer/distributor of the petitioner company.4. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition can be stated thus. On 9.9.2005, Insecticide Inspector-cum-Horticulture Development Officer, Mandi intercepted the shop M/s. K.D. Sood House and purchased three pa...

State of H.P. and ors. Vs. Raj Kanwar Singh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC344

Surjit Singh, J.1. Writ petitioners, i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Conservator of Forests, Rampur Circle, have filed the present petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for judicial review of order dated June 22, 2004, passed by H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby original application filed by respondent Raj Kanwar Singh, for the quashing of order of penalty, dated 2nd March, 1994, Annexure P-3, has been allowed.2. Relevant facts are like this. Respondent, Raj Kanwar Singh, was employed as Forest Ranger in Forest Department of State of Himachal Pradesh. While working in Forest Division, Kotkhai, he allegedly embezzled material and money, the total value of which was Rs. 31,234/-. He was charge-sheeted by the Conservator of Forests. He denied the charge. Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Conservator of Forests. Inquiry was conducted and respondent was found guilty. Matter was referred to the Principal Conserva...

Raj Kumar Vs. Food Inspector

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC359

Surinder Singh, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2. Shimla under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,. 'Food Act' for short.2. The petitioner is the licensee of the Hotel Eve, The Mall, Shimla. The said premises are used for the lodging and catering. Kamal Kumar, the real brother of the petitioner, was the Manager and conducting the business of the said Hotel.3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 28-12-2005, at about 12.15 p.m., Food Inspector inspected the premises of the aforesaid Hotel the Eve, The Mall, Shimla and found Kamal Kumar conducting the business as a Manager. At that time, he was having 4 x 250 grams poly packs of Amritsari Papar on a shelf kept for sale to the general public. After disclosing his identity, the Food In...

Braham Dass Vs. Onkar Chand and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC339

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur in CMA No. 218/2006 (Civil Suit No. 79/1998).2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of the land as entered in Khasra No. 366 measuring 3 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Khagal, Mauza Jangal, Tehsil and District Hamirpur as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93. According to the petitioner, the entries made in favour of the respondents were illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction. The petitioner by way of consequential relief also claimed that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the suit land and they may also be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. A decree was claimed for possession by way of demolition of construction in case any construction is found to be raised over the su...

Basant Ram Vs. Siri Ram and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J. 1. The appellant had filed a private complaint No. 228/1 of 1994 against the respondents. After the full dress trial, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and under Sections 323,504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The acquittal of the respondents has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal on the grounds that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and it also erred in holding that the appellant was having inimical relations with the respondents, defence evidence was wrongly relied upon and it attached undue importance to the contradictions.3. Leave to appeal was granted on 14.12.2001. Now the matter has been finally heard and I have gone through the evidence on record in its meticulous details.4. The synoptical resume of the facts giving rise to the present appeal are. The complainant a Harij...

Mohan Lal Sood and ors. Vs. Vinod Dogra and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC42

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Act', against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority-I, dated 1.4.2003, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 28.4.2001 of Rent Controller, Kangra at Dharamshala, ordering the eviction of the respondents was allowed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was set aside.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners as landlords filed a petition for eviction of the respondents/tenants from the disputed premises consisting of a shop in question, which was rented out to the respondents. It was alleged that the shop was originally rented out to one Badri Nath on 3.9.1948 at rental of Rs. 45/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 75/- per month with effect from 1985. In 1956, the said Badri Nath shifted and handed over possession ...

State of H.P. Vs. Niti Raj @ Gogi

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1922,2009(1)ShimLC271

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 17.1.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-accused and set-aside the judgment of the learned trial Court whereby the accused has been convicted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and undergosimple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and also to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 338 IPC. In case of default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under each count. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The admitted facts are that on 25.8.1994 the accused was driving a mini Motor Cycle on a Dangri-Kangoo road. It is also not disputed that the ...

Kawal Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2400,2009(1)ShimLC324

Surinder Singh, J.1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short the 'Code', challenging the orders dated 2.9.2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, declining the release of the truck No. HR-38-A-3697, under Section 457 of the Code, which was taken into possession by the police in case FIR No. 29 dated 8.2.2007, registered in police station Nahan, registered under Sections 406, 407, 420, 467, 468, 471, 482 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. The synoptical resume of the facts giving rise to the present petition may be stated thus, M/s. Sood Goods Transport Company was having a contract to transport the factory goods. On 25.1.2007, the said truck was engaged to transport 110 Air-conditioners from the premises of M/s Blue Star Limited, Kala Amb, to be taken to Secunderabad (AP). After I loading, it went missing.3. When the whereabouts of the truck were not known, one Shri Rajiv Sood, an employee of the Goods Transport C...

State of H.P. Vs. Ghindro Ram

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC388

Surinder Singh, J.1. Heard and gone through the record.2. The State has assailed the judgment of acquittal passed in Criminal Case No. 140-II of 1997/95 decided on 21-3-2001 by learned trial Court on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective and attached undue importance to the minor contradictions of its witnesses. If the evidence on record is examined properly, there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction.3. In short, the prosecution case can be summoned up thus. On 7-3- 1995, respondent Ghindro Ram hired a Mohindra pick-up owned by Hans Raj, bearing registration number H.P. 48-0263, which was locally called as 'NC' to take three gunny bags full of old plastic shoes from village Salooni to Chamba. He paid the fare to the Hans Raj aforesaid. The Driver of the said vehicle was PW3 Hem Raj. They left Salooni around 8/9 a.m. PW2 Hoshiar Singh also took a lift along with his daughter. Besides responden...