Himachal Pradesh Court January 2012 Judgments

M/S. Jaiprakash Associates Limited and Another Vs. State of Himachal P ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

1. The present writ petition was heard on 18.6.2011 and thereafter again on 11.1.2012. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and prohibition restraining and prohibiting the respondents No.1, 2 and 5 from demanding and realizing tax from the petitioner under the Himachal Pradesh Taxation (On Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1999 in respect of the goods  manufactured by it namely ‘clinker’ and ‘cement’ in its said new manufacturing unit; (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to refund the amount of got deposited from the petitioner against the tax under Himachal Pradesh Taxation (On Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1999 along with interest @ 24% p.a. (iii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to fulfill the commitment in its entirety as contain...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. the Government of Himachal Pradesh Through ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J. oral: 1. The Court has taken cognizance of the letter addressed by Satvir Kaur dated 7.9.2011. The gist of the letter is that though the F.I.R. has been registered after the directions issued by this Court in Cr.W.P. No. 22/2010, however, investigation has not been carried out in the case in objective and fair manner. Notice was issued to the respondents on 22.9.2011. Thereafter, detailed orders were passed by this Court on 19.10.2011 and 24.11.2011. The matter was taken up today. 2. Petitioner’s husband has not come home after 6.6.2010. Initially, even an F.I.R. was not registered by the police. The petitioner approached this Court by way of Cr.W.P. No. 22/2010 seeking direction to the police to register F.I.R. Cr.W.P. No. 22/2010 was disposed of by this Court on 24.2.2011 directing the police to register the F.I.R. Petitioner was also awarded special compensation of ` one lakh. The F.I.R. though has been registered on 24.2.2011, but it is evident from the affid...

Himalu Ram, District Kangra Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath in Criminal Case No. 57-II of 2001 dated 27.10.2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 326 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/-, simple imprisonment for one year under Section 325 IPC and a fine of Rs. 250/-, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC and a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The Criminal Appeal No. 26-B/X/2004 filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 27.10.2004 has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 27.5.2005 which has been assailed in the revision. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 Manoj Kumar lodged rapat No. 19 dated 30.1.2001 Ex.PW-1/A at Police Station Baijnath at 6.40 p.m. alleging therein that he had parked his taxi HP-01- 8495 at about 6.30 p.m. outside local bus stand. In the meantime, petiti...

Kamlesh Kumari Vs. Aman Kishore

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012AIR(HP)33

Surinder Singh, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner-wife under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.5.2011 passed, in RBT CMA No.53-G/2011/2010 (RBT HMA No.65-G/III/2010), by the learned Additional District Judge-II Kangra at Dharamshala whereby application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was partly allowed to the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? extent of payment of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.4,000/- while declining pendente-lite alimony on the ground that the respondent-husband has been directed to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner-wife and Rs.500/- per month to her daughter Surbhi, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short ‘the Code’ which is considered to be sufficient. The learned trial Court also observed that the petitioner is not remediless and she could also seek enhancement under Sectio...

Lekh Raj Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ331(NOC)

Surinder Singh, J. Oral: 1. The appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in short ‘the Act’ for allegedly keeping in possession 22.30% charas in the recovered stuff of 1.6 kilograms and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- with the default clause. The learned trial Court also gave him the benefit under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period he remained in custody during the investigation and trial of the case. Hence the present appeal by the appellant hereinafter referred to as “the accused”. 2. In nutshell, prosecution story is that on 23.12.2007 PW6 Inspector Om Parkash accompanied by PW1 S.I. Rajinder Kumar, PW2 HHC Kashmi Ram PW3 HC Pune Ram and Satish Kumar were present at ‘Jangli pul’ in connection with patrolling duty. At about 12.30 p.m. accused came from...

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rafiq Mohammad

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J. Oral: 1. This is the case of prosecution that on 23.8.2004, accused went to the shop of Keshav Sahni (PW-1) to purchase ten pieces of T-Shirts. Items were selected and price contracted. Accused tendered two currency notes of denomination of ` 1000/- each towards the sale consideration. PW-1 Keshav Sahni noticed that “perhaps” currency notes handed over by the accused were not genuine, as such he informed the police. Rojnamacha (P-J) was recorded by the police on the basis of which F.I.R No.264/2004 (Ex. PL) dated 7.12.2004 was registered with Police Station Solan under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 420 of Indian Peal Code. Police commenced investigation and SI Anant Ram (PW-9, Inspector(SHO) Smt. Babita Rana (PW- 10) investigated the matter along with ASI Ratan Chand(PW-7) and H.C Madan Lal (PW-6). Four more currency notes of similar denomination were recovered from the possession of the accused. Deputy Manager of Punjab National Bank, Solan namely Mahesh Gambh...

The Superintendent of Post Offices Solan Division and Another Vs. Ram ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla

Surjit Singh, President. Oral: This appeal by the Superintendent of Post Offices Solan and Postmaster, Post Office Sarahan is directed against the order dated 05.05.2010 of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, whereby the complaint, filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the respondent-Ram Nath seeking award of compensation for mis-disbursement of money sent through money order has been allowed. Admitted facts are that respondent-Ram Nath booked a money order for Rs.2400/- on 07.09.2007, at Post Office Sarahan. Money was not disbursed to the payee named in the money order form. Instead it was disbursed to some other person. On coming to know that money had not been disbursed to the named payee, respondent-Ram Nath, took up the matter with the appellants. Appellants then prepared a duplicate money order and remitted the money to the person named as payee by the respondent. This took 9 months time. Learned Forum awarded compensati...

Jarnail Singh @ Jailli Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ332(NOC)

Surinder Singh, J. oral: 1. The appellant felt aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No.9 of 2010, on 17.7.2010, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The period of detention undergone by the appellant herein, to be referred as “the accused”, during the investigation and trial was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., hence the present appeal. 2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The prosecutrix- a Nepali and her husband PW1 Chinda a local resident are agriculturist residing in remote area of Chamba. They have reared about 20-25 goats and have few cattle heads. The prosecutrix is quite a rustic vi...

Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ1743

Surinder Singh, J: 1. The appellant has laid a challenge to his conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No.2 of 2004 decided on 27/29.11.2004, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and three months, for attempted rape on the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, who was deaf and dumb. 2. In brief, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 4th August, 2003, around 7 p.m., the prosecutrix was alongwith her sister and mother Kiran Bala (PW1) while returning from their fields. PW1 aforesaid was ahead of all, followed by her daughters. When PW1 aforesaid reached near her house, she noticed that the prosecutrix was not with them, thus, she started searching for her on the way and in and around the agricultural fields. During search, the father of the prosecutrix also met them, who w...

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ram Chand and Others

Court: Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Ahuja, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, H.P., dated 30.7.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20.8.1999, a report was lodged with the police by complainant PW-1 Parkash Chand that his younger sister Sudesh Kumari, aged about 24 years, was married with Ram Chand, respondent, on 9.3.1996. Two sons were born from this wedlock. After one year, his sister started complaining to him that her in-laws harass her and her husband Ram Chand also gives her beatings. In the month of July, 1999, on 27th/28th, his sister came to their house and told that she has been turned out by her husband after giving beatings and had kept the children with him. She apprehended a threat to her life from her in-laws. She also...