Himachal Pradesh Court July 2011 Judgments

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kuldip Singh and Another

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ233(NOC)

R.B. Misra, J. Oral: 1. The present appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) Cr. P.C, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 20.10..2001, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P, in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 1999, acquitting the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC, in reference to F.I.R No. 34 of 1998, dated 21.4.1998. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Sushma Devi was married to accused Kuldip Singh in the year 1995, according to Hindu rites and customs. Initially for a couple of months, both carried their married life happily, however, whenever, Sushma (victim-deceased) came to the house of her parents she made complaint that she was beaten by accused Kuldip Singh on the pretext that she was not obeying the commands of her husband. In November, 1996, when Sushma came to her parents house she remained there for two months. At that time accused ...

State of H.P. Vs. Managing Director M/S Edifice Laboratories

Court: Himachal Pradesh

SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) 1. In this appeal, the challenge is made by the State to the acquittal of the respondent passed by the learned trial Court in case No. No. 81/3 of 2000/1999 decided on 11.6.2004 under Section 18 (a) (i) read with Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, in short ‘the Act’. 2. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. On 30.9.1997 Drug Inspector of District Bilaspur lifted the sample of ‘Furazolidone’ tablets I.P. No. 2993 manufactured by the respondent, from the stores of District Hospital at Bilaspur. The sample was found to be of sub-standard quality by the government Analyst, Kandaghat. Respondents-firm was asked to supply the necessary record of stuff and sub-standard drugs relating to the manufacturing and testing of the drugs and to explain as to why legal proceedings be not initiated against them. Respondent firm was also supplied with the copies of the invoice by which the drug was purchased by the Government of...

Dharam Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

SURJIT SINGH, J. Oral: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.05.2010/10.05.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 30-D/VII-2007, whereby the appellant, who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was convicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/- was also imposed. In default of payment of fine, the accused was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. According to the case of the prosecution, a police “Nakka” was laid at Fhuhara Chowk by Head Constable Vinod Singh, Head Constable Madan Mohan, Constables Anil Kumar and Madan Lal. On 25.04.2007, at about 1:00 a.m.(mid-night), one person coming from the side of Khara-Danda road, Kotwali Bazar was noticed. He tried to run away towards Mcleodganj. Head Constable Madan Mohan and Head Constable Vinod Singh ...

Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Anoth ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Heard Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Award dated 20.5.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, H.P., in Reference No. 44 of 2007, Shri Sikander Lal vs. Superintending Engineer, P.S.E.B., Circle Office, Shanan, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. and another, under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the I.D. Act’), operative part whereof, contained in the relief clause at para 26 is extracted below, is under challenge in this petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the appellants-employer:- “For all the foregoing reasons discussed above the reference is allowed. The action of the respondent in promoting the juniors of the petitioner as foreman is held to be illegal and untenable. As a sequel theretothe respondent is directed to promote the petitioner as a foreman w.e.f. the date ot...

Pritam Singh Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

DEV DARSHAN SUD, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges his conviction for offence under Section 354 IPC for assaulting, molesting and outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix, who at the relevant time was a student of 10th class. 2. The prosecution case was that on 15.1.2004 she was going to school. At around 8 AM in the morning when she reached the jungle near Kaligarh, she noticed that the accused was stalking her. He overtook her and stopped her after some distance. Thereafter he caught hold of the prosecutrix from both arms and pushed her to the ground. She tried to save herself and in the struggle her clothes especially her sweater was torn. She shouted for help but the petitioner gagged her mouth. She extricated his hand from her mouth after a brief struggle and shouted for help. Upon this, Lali Devi, who was cutting fuel wood at some distance, came and rescued her from the clutches of the petitioner. 3. The learned trial Court on the evidence on record convicted the petitioner ...

Anil Kumar Vs. Seema Rani

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J. Oral: 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the father) has challenged the order dated 5th May, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, rejecting the application of the father to have the custody of the child for one day on weekends. The learned District Judge rejected the application mainly on the ground that he found no reason to vary the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by his learned predecessor. 2. The paramount consideration, nay the sole consideration, in the case of a custody of the child is the interest and welfare of the child. In this case both the parents are educated. The father is a lawyer by profession and the mother is a news reader. They may have their own differences, but the child has a right to know and love both his parents. The ego of the husband and wife should never stand in the way of the affection of the child towards both his parents. The child was begotten out of a wedlock between two adults. Unfort...

Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge 1. The convict has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2005 convicting the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC and Section 3 (i) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short Atrocities Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of ` 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 376 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of ` 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 3 (i) (xii) of the Atrocities Act. No separate sentence has been imposed under Sections 363, 366 and 506 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.9.2004 PW-4 prosecutrix accompanied by her father PW-5 Lolak Ram r...