Himachal Pradesh Court March 2009 Judgments

Shri S.C. Thakur Vs. the State of H.P. and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC143

Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The petitioner joined as Clerk in the Public Relations Department on 15.12.1956. He was promoted to the post of Accountant-cum-Store Keeper on 14.9.1962. The Accountants/Assistants/Account-ant-cum-Store Keepers were in the same pay scale and their seniority was joint. The respondent-State introduced selection grade for Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers on 17.11.1976. It was clarified on 18.12.1976 that if the posts of Head Clerks/Senior Clerks/Cashiers/Accountants/Store Keepers are borne out on the common cadre and inter-changeable selection grade would be permissible as per memorandum dated 17.11.1976. The principles and procedure for the grant of selection grade were laid down by the Government on 1.3.1977. Since the petitioner had completed ten years of service as Accountant-cum-Store Keeper, he made a representation for release of selection grade. His representation was rejected by the Director on 22.6.1989. It appears from the records that the petitioner...

Neeraj Negi Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement since they arise out of one award delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan on 7.4.2005 in claim petition No. 43-S/2 of 2003.2. The claimants are the three sons and a daughter of late Shri Mohan Lal. They filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of their father Mohan Lal, which according to them was caused due to the accident with Scooter No. HP-14-4045. The deceased was working as Blacksmith in the HPPWD and was aged about 50 years. In the original claim petition it was alleged that the scooter was owned and driven by Shri Deepak Singh S/o Shri Balwant Singh. Deepak Singh filed a reply stating that he is neither the owner nor the driver of the scooter and the same is owned by Shri Neeraj Negi working in the Sub Post office at Chambaghat. According to Deepak Singh the vehicle was being driven by Shri Neeraj Negi and he was only...

Ram Chand Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3257

Surinder Singh, J.1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the convict-petitioner, against the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned trial court and affirmed in appeal, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition can be summed up thus. PW2 Govind Ram and PW3 Jagdish Ram visited Bilaspur on 22.3.1997, to attend annual Nalwari3. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?.Yes. fair. In the evening after attending the fair with intention to return to their village, they came to bus stand Bilaspur at about 7 p.m. The petitioner herein was the driver of Bus No. HP-24-3401 plying on Bilaspur- Brahmpukhar road. It is alleged that when Govind Ram and Jagdish Ram were waiting for the bus, the accused-petitioner drove his bus rashly and negligently while entering into the bus stand, which was packed with the rush of p...

Ashok Kumar Bais and ors. Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC373

Surinder Singh, J.1.The accused-petitioners stand charge-sheeted by the learned Sessions Judge, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in short 'the Dowry Act' and also under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 16.6.2008, which has been assailed in the present criminal revision petition, on the following grounds:(i) That the case was investigated by the police officer below the rank of Dy. S.P. and no sanction was taken from the District Magistrate before initiating the proceeding for the alleged offence under The Dowry Act, as required under the law. Thus the learned trial Court could hot have taken the cognizance under the said Act, AND(ii) Prima-facie the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out from the prosecution story, the charge was framed in a slip-shod manner and without application of mind, therefore, deserves to be set-aside.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for...

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tilak Raj

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4739

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The respondent was tried by the learned Special Judge, Una in corruption case No. 4 of 1999 and acquitted him on 18-10-2001 and therefore, the State has filed this appeal for setting aside the acquittal of respondent.2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent was appointed as Patwari vide order Ex. PE dated 13-3-1992 and vide order Ex. P-G, he was posted as Patwari at Tahliwal Uperala. The further case of the prosecution is that the father of the complainant Jarnail Singh PW-7 had some land dispute with one Amar Chand and, therefore, the complainant wanted a copy of jamabandi of that land which was situated in Patwar Circle, Tahliwal Uperala. PW-7 Jarnail Singh on 7-4-1996 went to respondent and requested him to supply a copy of jamabandi, but respondent asked him for 'seva pani'. He demanded Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification but complainant gave him Rs. 100/-. On 8-4-1996, complainant along with Ranbir Singh again went to respondent in the morning and at that time...

Kushal Singh Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC532

Surinder Singh Thakur, J.1. The present Criminal Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the concurrent findings of his guilt for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for each of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 338 I.P.C.2. Precisely, the facts of the case which have given arisen to the present petition are that on 22.11.1995 complainant PW 1 Sh. Rajesh Kumar was driving his Maruti Van bearing registration No. DDA-1093 with his family members, namely, Sheelawanti, Bakshish Singh and Ajit Singh and were going to Baba Barh Bhag Singh in District Una. According to the complainant he was driving in a moderate speed. When he reached at a place known 'Lalsingi', an H.R.T.C. bus bearing No...

Chaman Lal Vs. Shree Gopal Impex (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The order dated 5.9.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharmshala, has been assailed herein. The appellant is referred to as plaintiff and contesting respondent No. 1 is referred to as defendant No. 1. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,80,000/- against 11 defendants. Defendant No. 1 is Shree Gopal Impex (P) Limited with whom the plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 18.9.2002. Defendants No. 2 to 11 are the agents acting for and on behalf of defendant No. 1. In terms of the agreement certain supplies were effected by the plaintiff to/through the said defendants No. 2 to 11. Since the defendants failed to pay the amount for the supplies effected, plaintiff filed suit for recovery before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kangra at Dharamsala (HP). 3. In the said suit, defendant No. 1 entered appearance on 13.6.2006. On 8.9.2006 the Court directed the appearing defendants to file their written statement before 4.11.2006, on which date defendant N...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bachan Kaur and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC21

Sanjay Karol, J.1. Award dated 7.1.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (SDM), Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., titled as Bachan Kaur and Ors. v. Dhian Singh and Ors. is subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal filed by the Insurer.2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether a co-owner of the vehicle and the insured himself can be a 'workman' within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act and in the event of his death, the legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation from insurance company under the policy of insurance?3. The appellant is the insurer of the truck No. HR-38-2134, respondents No. 1 to 5 are the claimants-legal heirs of deceased Dalip Singh, brother of Shri Dhian Singh owner of the vehicle (respondent No. 6 herein) and Shri Jai Ram (respondent No. 7 herein) is the driver of the vehicle.4. Legal heirs of Shri Dalip Singh being his wife and children filed an application under Section 20 of the Workmen's ...

State of H.P. Vs. Joginder Singh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC503

V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr. P.C. against the judgment, dated 31.3.1994, of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 302/34 I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.8.1992 at 8.30 a.m., a report was lodged with the police vide rapat No. 2, dated 12.8.1991, by one Ved Prakash that a Didag Tifri near water fall, a body of an unidentified person was lying. On this report, the police proceeded to the spot and after some time, the body was identified to be that of one Rajinder Singh. The statement of Smt. Bimla Devi, wife of the deceased Rajinder Singh, was recorded at 11.45 a.m. on the same day in which she alleged that on the previous day, her husband had left the house at 7.00 a.m. stating that he was going to Sagrah and would come back in the evening. She waited for her husband upto 8/9 p.m., but, when he did not ...

Kulbir Chauhan Vs. S.M. Katwal

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(1)ShimLC509

Surinder Singh, J.1. The petitioner herein is an Assistant District Attorney in the Prosecution Department of Himachal Pradesh. He has challenged the order dated 10.6.2005 of his summoning by the learned trial court in Criminal Complaint No. 37-1-04/22-II-04 (RBT No. 66-II-05/04) as an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 451, 380, 506 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, on the grounds firstly, that no case is made out against him and secondly, for want of prosecution sanction, as contemplated under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present case can be summed up thus. In March 2003, the respondent herein was the Chairman of 'Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board', in short the 'Board' posted at Hamirpur. There were complaints of illegal recruitments made by the respondent in his capacity as a Chairman. With the change of new Government, an inquiry was initiated against him. A team of Enforcement depar...