Himachal Pradesh Court May 2012 Judgments

Prem Chand JaIn and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secr ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kurian Joseph, C.J. 1. Both the writ petitions essentially pertain to the same grievance and hence they are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner in the former writ petition who has been allegedly examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in connection with the investigation of FIR No. 27 dated 3.8.2009 registered under Sections 13(1) (d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla, states that he has never given any statement as allegedly recorded as per Annexure P-2 nor has any one met him for recording such a statement. Therefore, the following prayers are made: a. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to order enquiry either by an independent agency or by a senior judicial authority into the facts and circumstances in which the statement attributed to the petitioner has been recorded; b. That the name of the petitioner be deleted from the list of witnesses and a declaration be issued tha...

Yash Pal of Sh. Sukh Dev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

1. The convict has come in appeal against judgment dated 23.11.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2001 convicting the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of ` 10,000/- In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Smt. Shubh Lata, now deceased, daughter of PW-1 Som Nath and sister of PW-11 Savita Devi was married to appellant on 22.1.1999. The deceased after marriage visited her parents house and stayed there till 27.2.1999. The appellant 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment yes used to visit his in-laws house during this period. The deceased told PW-11 Savita Devi, her elder sister that appellant was demanding scooter and in case it was not given, she would not be sent to her parents house. PW-11 Savita Devi told this fact to her aunt PW-12 Smt. Naresh R...

Raj Mal and Others Vs. Shrimati Premo and Others

Court: Himachal Pradesh

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1999. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the respondent-plaintiff, namely, Smt. Premo Devi (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit against the appellants defendants, namely, S/Sh. Saran, Paras Ram, Manohar Lal, Raj Mal, Hans Raj, Jiwan Singh, Surinder Kumar and Kram Chand (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for the sake of convenience), seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 12.07.1996 executed by Sh. Saran, predecessorin- interest of appellants No. 6(a) to 6(c) in favour of defendants, namely, S/Sh. Paras Ram, Manohar Lal, Raj Mal, Hans Raj, Jiwan Singh, Surinder Kumar and Karam Chand, was illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff as she has become owner o...

Dhani Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) to the Government of Hi ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012AIR(HP)76

Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner had instituted civil suit in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class (1), Kangra bearing Civil Suit No.134 of 1988 for declaration to the effect that he was in exclusive possession as co-owner over the land comprising Khata No. 120/min/110 Red Harra, Khatauni No. 228, Khasra No. 413 measuring 0-11-96 hectares. According to him, entry made in favour of respondent No.2 as Gair Maurushi tenant over this khasra number was contrary to the spot position. According to him, the same was liable to be changed in his favour. Suit was contested by respondent No.2. According to him, he was in possession of the suit land, including other khasra numbers and has become owner in possession of the suit land after the enactment of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Learned trial court framed the following issues on 16.11.1988: 1. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD. 2...

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gulzari Lal Prop. of M/S. Jaggi Biscuit ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2710

Surinder Singh, J. Oral: 1. The State felt aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents in Criminal Case No.59-S/3 of 2K/95, decided on 30.9.2004, for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in short ‘the Act’ for allegedly selling the adulterated standardized milk to the Food Inspector. Hence the present appeal. 2. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, in short, can be stated thus. On 24.10.1994, PW1 Food Inspector (F.I.) S.C. Joshi, around noon intercepted the shop of respondent No.1 Gulzari Lal. He noticed 20 sealed polythene pouches of 500 grams each were exhibited by him for sale to the general public for human consumption. F.I. disclosed his identity and issued notice Ext.P1. He opened two sealed polythene pouches in the presence of the accused and put it into clean and dry jug. It was properly mixed and out of this he purchased 750 grams of milk on making payment of Rs.8.25 paise vide receipt Ext.P2....

Rahul Soorma and Others Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh, Through Sec ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012CrLJ2782

Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside, quashing summoning order dated 25.05.2011 in Domestic Violence Act Case No.7 of 2011 and complaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (I), Hamirpur. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 wanted to marry, but father of respondent No.2 was against the marriage. He even threatened to end the life of the petitioner and his family members. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, however, was solemnized at 'Araya Samaj Mandir, Hanuman Mandir', New Delhi, on 09.05.2010 as per Hindu rites. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was against the wishes of family members of respondent No.2. At the time of marriage, members of family of petitioner No.1 were present , but no-one was present from the family of the respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner No.1 and members of his family rece...

Sat Parkash and Another Vs. Jamna Dass

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J. Oral: 1. This appeal is directed against judgment, decree dated 12.4.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Una, in Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1996 partly reversing judgment, decree dated 30.9.1996 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Una in Civil Suit No. 146 of 1990. 2. Briefly stated facts are that respondent Jamna Dass had filed a suit for declaration that he had been coming in possession of land measuring 0-15-63 Hectares, comprised in Khasra No. 296 village Gharial, Tehsil Una as mortgagee, now he has become owner of said land by afflux of time. The entries in revenue record of the suit land appearing in the names of the appellants showing them mortgagors in possession as ‘Kasht Rahin’ are wrong, illegal and have no bearing on the ownership and possessory rights of the respondent over the suit land. 3. It was alleged that the suit land was originally owned by Sadhu, who about 50 years ago mortgaged the suit land alongwith some other land in favour of resp...

Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of Himachal, Through Its Secretary, ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2012AIR(HP)68

V.K. Sharma, J. Oral: 1. The challenge herein in this civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) is against the order dated 05.03.2011, passed by the learned District Judge (Forest) Shimla, dismissing an application under Section 146 CPC filed by the petitioner herein with a prayer for ‘grant of  compensation to the extent of the shares of applicants by enforcing the award passed by Ld. ADJ, Shimla in land Reference No. 9-S/4 of 2005, decided on 5.11.2007’. 2. Shorn of details the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that land measuring 1 bigha 6 biswa belonging to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, late Shri Bija Ram, to the extent of 1/3 share alongwith other co-owners, namely, Prem Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Swadesh Kumar and Hemant Kumar to the extent of 1/3 share and Om Parkash and Bansi Dhar to the extent of 1/3 share, was acquired by respondent No. 1-State. ...