Himachal Pradesh Court May 2009 Judgments

Brahama Nand Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiff herein praying for a decree of declaration that the order dated 13.7.1977 passed in Case No. 49/13 by the Collector, Shimla, Ex.DW-6/B and the order passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Shimla Division, Ex.P-7/B (Ex.DW-6/C), are without jurisdiction, illegal, void and not binding on the interests of the plaintiff-appellant.2. The plaintiff pleaded that he is a permanent i.e. resident of Mauja Phayal (Dochi Nagog), Tehsil and District Shimla and is inhabitant of the said revenue estate and a co-sharer with the other 'Malkan Deh' residents of village where he has been residing since the time of his birth. He claimed his own permanent ownership on land settled by him measuring 10-16 Bighas in Khasra No. 196 min, which, according to the plaintiff, was in his possession since the year 1970. The plaintiff pleaded that t...

G.S. Dod Vs. State of Hp and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surjit Singh, J.1. Petitioner has sought judicial review of order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (now defunct) in O.A No. 1260/99, whereby prayer made by the petitioner in the said OA for payment of interest on delayed disbursement of arrears of pension, gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension has been allowed only in part. Through the present writ petition, he seeks partial reversal of the order of the learned Tribunal, to the extent the interest on a part of the arrears of pension, gratuity, commutation of pension and leave encashment, has been declined.2. Petitioner was employed as a member of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service at the time of his retirement in July, 1998. In fact, he attained the age of superannuation in May, 1998, but was allowed to serve till further orders, because his case for consideration for promotion to IFS cadre was pending and in the case of IFS officers, the date of retirement is 60 years.3....

Hem Chand Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC256

Deepak Gupta, J.1. These petitions reflect an amazing state of affairs where a representative of the public i.e. Pardhan Gram Panchayat-Savindhar, Tehsil Karsog, has flouted all directions given by the State and has made the life of the petitioner a living hell.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the State of Himachal Pradesh, exercising its powers under Clause 12 of the Recruitment Scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers, recommended that the petitioner be appointed Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Alyas, Tehsil Karsog, on compassionate basis. According to the petitioner, the appointing authority in respect of part time water carriers is the Gram Panchayat and the appointment letter has to be issued by the Pradhan. Respondent No. 4 is the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner avers that pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation he approached the respondent No. 4 for issuance of letter of appointment in his favour on 29th June, 2004. According to...

State of H.P. Vs. Updesh Singh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 24.5.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 32/91, affirming judgment, decree dated 4.3.1991 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, (II), Nurpur in Civil Suit No. 68 of 1990/88.2. The respondent was plaintiff in the suit for declaration and injunction regarding land comprised in khasra Nos. 632, 643, 645, plots 3, measuring 1-01-09 hectares vide missal haquiat 1983-84, situate in Tika and Mauza Kursan, Tehsil Indora. The further case of the respondent is that on coming into force of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short Act) he became owner of the suit land along with some other land and mutation No. 390 conferring proprietary rights in favour of respondent was attested on 6.2.1982. The mutation No. 390 was reviewed on 26.5.1987 which took away rights of ownership of respondent on the suit land, such review is wrong, illegal, void and wi...

State of H.P. Vs. Babu Ram and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

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 of the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 12.8.1993, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 302, read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 8.2.1993, at 5.20 P.M., statement of complainant Pakhlu Ram was recorded by Head Constable of Police Station Lambagaon, in which he alleged that on the previous night at about 11/11.30 P.M., Harbans, Babu and Giani came to the house of one Kanku and Babu Ram started playing Taperecorder. He further alleged that his brother Kanku Ram switched off the Taperecorder, which was again put on by Babu Ram and they started dancing. Roshan Lal asked them not to dance, on which these three persons started quarrelling with Roshan Lal. It was further alleged that Babu Ram and Giani caught hold of Roshan Lal and Harbans took Danda and gave a bow ...

Mohinder Kumar and ors. Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4235

Surinder Singh, J.1. In this criminal appeal, the challenge has been made by the appellants against their conviction and sentence passed under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1999, decided on 16.1.2002, whereby each of the appellants were ordered to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- to each of the appellants with a default clause.2. The background facts of the case are:On 20.1.1998, a person was found in an injured condition by the side of the stairs leading to Mohalla 'Pucca Tala'. The Police was informed. The injured was taken to the Hospital for his treatment. He was unconscious. His identification could not be ascertained. On 17.1.1998, he regained his senses however, was unable to speak, but he allegedly wrote the names of the appellants on his note book describing that they had given beatings to him.3. PW-2 Dharam Chand, father of the injured...

Vidhi Chand Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC197

Surinder Singh, J.1. In this appeal the appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The sentences imposed under each of the sections are as under:Sr. No. Under Section:1. 376 I.P.C. Seven years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-.In default of payment of fine the convict further to undergo simpleimprisonment of six months.2. 341 I.P.C. One month simple imprisonment.3. 323 I.P.C. One year simple imprisonment.3. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of custody was ordered to be set off. In brief the prosecution case can be stated thus: On 28.1.2001 at about 5/6 p.m. the prosecutrix had gone to 'Jakhroda jungle' to fetch the char-wood. On her return, when she reached near a water source, the appellant resident of village Jakhroda met. Finding her alone he stopped her and threw away the load of wood on the ground. Thereafter he c...

State of H.P. Vs. Devi Dass and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J.1. Respondent Devi Dass was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereas wife-respondent Aruna Devi was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 201 of the Indian Penal Code, in Corruption Case No. 7 of 1999. Both the respondents were acquitted by the learned Special Judge, vide a detailed judgment passed on 29.11.2001 and their acquittal has been challenged in this appeal.2. In short, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that PW1 Ram Kishan was a tenant along with his brother over the land in village Bhaira, district Una, as depicted in Khatauni Ex.PA/1. The mutation of proprietary rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was to be sanctioned in his favour for which Ghanshyam Dass, Field Kanungo vide Ex.PN appointed Devi Dass Patwari, to do the needful, but the complainant failed to get his grievance redressed, thus on 22.2.1996, the complainant along with his brother...

Luder Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The accused has come in appeal against the judgment dated 20.2.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 01/2001 convicting the appellant under Sections 3, 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'Act') and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 Sesh Ram, District Food and Supplies Controller, Kullu on 26.4.1998 had received information that three-wheeler bearing registration No. HP-05-0934 had been brought for selling kerosene oil in black market. He inspected threewheeler at Akhara Bazar, Kullu which was being driven by PW-2 Karam Singh, who disclosed that kerosene oil was supplied by accused, salesman Harijan Cooperative Society, Bashing (for short 'Society') to PW-4 Hari Singh. The kerosene oil 150 litres was kept in six containers of twent...

Jagdish Chand Vs. Kartar Chand

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC272

Surinder Singh, J.1. Petitioner is an accused in the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence in the case was led by the complainant and the accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, it was detected that the complainant did not examine himself. Thus, he moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure containing therein that he had filed two complaints with respect to the two separate cheques against the accused-petitioner in the same Court. The Counsel for the complainant due to the misconception and under the wrong impression without examining the complainant closed his evidence on 11.6.2007. Therefore, he made a request for his examination which was essential and necessary for the justice of the case.2. The request was allowed and the complainant was permitted to be examined in support of his case which was assailed by filing the Criminal Revision Petition under Section 482 Cr.P....