Himachal Pradesh Court March 2011 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.
Jagdish Chand and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. Both these revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The petitioners were found in possession of 20 scants of Deodar and 19 planks of ‘Kail’ which they were transporting without any permission/authority as required under the Indian Forest Act and Rules framed thereunder. 2. Initially the petitioners were charged for offences under Sections 379 IPC and Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. But after considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court found no offence under Section 379 IPC established against the petitioners and they were therefore convicted for offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of ` 3000/- each. In default of fine, they were to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. 3. The case set up by the petitioners is one of total denial. In appeal, the points urged before the learned trial Court were retrieated by the pe...
Tulsi Dass and Others Vs. Surender Kumar Sharma and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. The acquittal of the respondent is under challenged in the present appeal filed by the complainants in Cr.Case No.5/2 of 1999/98 decided on 13.9.2000 by the learned trial Court, for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short, the facts shorn off unnecessarily details are as under:- (i) Respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to be as ‘the accused’ was posted as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) in the year 1997-98 in the Army School, Nahan. The wards of the appellants were studying in the said School in different classes. (ii) The monthly fee and other charges to be paid to the School used to be directly deposited in the State Bank of India in Cantonment Branch by filling up the triplicate forms of fee book. (iii) The appellants stated to have reposed confidence upon the accused and entrusted the fee of their wards for its deposit in the Bank aforesaid in the respectiv...
Jai Singh and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. By means of this revision petition, petitioners, hereinafter referred to as accused, have challenged the judgment, dated 8.5.2006, of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mandi, whereby they have been convicted of an offence under Sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of `500/- each, as also the judgment dated 29.11.2010, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, by Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? which their appeal has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence maintained. 3. Case of the prosecution is that on 10.1.2003, around 9 p.m., petitioners were carrying 14 logs of a dry Cheel tree in a jeep, the length of which varied from 3’ to 6’ and the girth varied from 33” to 42”. It appears that all the logs were part of the same tree because of variation in the girth of logs. The logs were dry and, ...
Ranjit Chand Katoch. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 26.6.1964. He was discharged on 30.6.1979. He was appointed as Excise and Taxation Inspector against the vacancy reserved for Ex-Servicemen on 28.3.1984. He was given the benefit of approved military service and seniority on 22.8.1986. He was confirmed on 28.1.1992 with effect from 5.6.1987. He made a representation for Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. counting his approved military service towards pensionary benefits on 2.5.2002. Same was rejected on 27.5.2003. He made second representation on 31.5.2003 and the same stood rejected on 6.11.2003. 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to get the approved military service counted toward pensionary benefits under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. According to him, his client was neither given opportunity to exercise his option at the time of his...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surender Singh Alias Sangam Girl
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. The respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) allegedly for keeping in possession 1100 grams of charas. The State felt dissatisfied by the judgment of acquittal. Hence the present appeal by the State. 2. Pre-admission notice was sent to the respondent but he was not traceable even despite nonbailable warrants. However, appeal was admitted for hearing on 31.7.2001, again the respondent who is Sadhu could not be traced, as such, he was declared proclaimed offender and till date his whereabouts are not known. 3. We do not think it proper to prolong the matter unnecessarily and appoint Sh.Ashok Thakur as an Amicus Curiae in the present case. Sh. Ashok Thakur, has been practicing in this Court for the last more than 10 years on civil as well as the criminal side and appearing before us. Apart from this, he is also the Central Government Standing Counsel. The...
C. R. Verma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. The following prayers have been made in the petition:- (i) That the orders contained in Annexure A-4 to A-6 may kindly be quashed and set-aside; (ii) That the respondents may be directed to redetermine the pension and refund the amount of Rs.35870/- which was recovered from him. Such other or further order as may be deemed just and proper may also be passed while allowing the original application. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 9.12.1964, he was promoted as Assistant on 3.11.1982 and then as Superintendent Grade II on 4.11.1992. On 17.8.1999, the pay of the petitioner was stepped up to the level of his juniors, Superintendent Grade II. The petitioner was granted the benefit of Assured Carrier Progressing Scheme on 11.4.2000. 3. The petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade I vide notification dated 24.6.2004, initially the promotion of the petition...
Man Das. Vs. State of H.P. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Heard and gone through the record. A work was awarded to the petitioner by the respondents, by means of Agreement Annexure P-1. Agreement provided for settlement of dispute, if any, arising between the parties, through arbitration. As per Clause-25, in the event of a dispute arising, the same would be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator, to be nominated by the Chief Engineer or Engineer-in-Chief, on being approached by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner submitted final bill on 12th August, 2009. A part of the amount of the bill was paid to him and the claim, with respect to the rest of it was rejected. Petitioner then approached the Chief Engineer to appoint an Arbitrator, vide notice dated 12th August, 2010, copy Annexure P-3. No action has been taken on the said notice, within the period stipulated by law, i.e. thirty days period. So, the petitioner has filed this petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of Arbitrator. 3....
Jiwan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. Appellant, alongwith his family members namely Shiv Chand father, Smt. Sheela Devi mother and Vidya Devi sister-in-law, was put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. When the matter was pending trial, Shiv Chand accused had died. Other accused except the appellant were acquitted, whereas, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and also under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `10,000/- with default clauses. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant directed the present appeal. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that Smt. Rajni daughter of PW1 Kaman Singh and PW2 Smt. Bhagmani was married to the appellant in the year 1994. During this marriage, s...
Shiv Ram Bali. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Patwari in the Settlement Department and was posted at Rampur, District Shimla. Thereafter, petitioner joined the Public Works Department as Patwari on permanent basis in the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Shimla on 1.6.1987. There are 79 posts of Patwari, 22 posts of Kanungo and 9 posts of Naib Tehsildar in the respondent-Department. Petitioner filed original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for making Recruitment and Promotion Rules for promotion to the posts of Kanungo from Patwari. Thereafter, Recruitment and Promotion Rules were framed by the respondent-department on 27.10.1995 for the posts of Kanungo. Petitioner was promoted as Kanungo in the year 1996. Thereafter, he filed original application bearing O.A. No. 251/1998 seeking directions to the respondents to frame Recruitment and Promotion Rules to the posts of Naib Tehsildar. Thi...
Santosh Singh.Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He was put under suspension on 12.4.1994. The suspension was revoked on 14.3.1995. Thereafter on the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed minor penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,61,287/- upon the petitioner, vide order dated 18.6.2001. Petitioner made a representation on 4.9.2001 for the release of payment qua suspension period as well as annual increment. He also served a legal notice on 21.4.2004. 2. Mr. L.N. Sharma has strenuously argued that as per law, once the minor penalty has been imposed upon his client, the suspension was wholly unjustified and his client is entitled to full pay and allowances under the period of suspension, i.e. with effect from 12.4.1994 to 14.3.1995 as well as annual increment. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »