Himachal Pradesh Court June 2012 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.
Pawan Kumar Alias Doctor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
Surinder Singh,J:- 1. The appellant has laid challenge in the present appeal to the judgment of conviction and Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? sentence passed by the learned trial Court in Session Case No. 11-VII-2011, decided on 31.10.2011, under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the Act, for allegedly keeping in his possession 900 grams of Poppy Husk, a non-commercial quantity, to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of ` 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. A. Prosecution Case 3. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the accused was running a Dhaba near Village Churru at Una-Amb road. On 27.9.2010, a police party headed by PW-13 ASI Ashok Kumar of Police Station, Amb was on patrolling in a police veh...
Bunni Lal Son of Shri Thag Chauhan Vs. State of H.P
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Surinder Singh, J, (Oral) 1. The appellant felt aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No. 17-S/7 of 2010 decided on 29.11.2010 whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in short the Act, for allegedly keeping in his possession 314 grams resin of cannabis plant in the total recovered stuff of 880 grams and sentenced to undergo 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment im-prisonment for a period two years and to pay a fine of `30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two months. The period of detention undergone during the investigation and trial was ordered to be set-off as per provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In nutshell, the prosecution case has been that on 9.6.2010, PW12 S.I. Heera Devi was heading a policy party. They were on patrolling in the area of Dhob...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Smt. Manju Rani and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. The State has challenged the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the respondents for offences under Section 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts necessary for consideration in this appeal are that the deceased Alka alias Ashu was the daughter of Roop Lal and was married to respondent No.3 Sheetal Kumar son of Sh. Devinder Dutt. Their marriage was performed despite opposition from the parents of the deceased. The undisputed fact is that it was a love marriage. On 13.9.2000, the marriage was solemnized at Rajgarh. The case of the prosecution is that they resided as husband and wife happily for some time but later on she was harassed for dowry which ultimately compelled her to end her life. 3. Ext. PA is statement of Bachani Devi (PW1). She states that her husband is employed in the Forest Department. They have two sons and two daughters. Alka alias Ashu is the eldest daughter, who has qualified degree of B.Sc....
Mohinder Pal and Others Vs. State of H.P. Through Secretary (Town and ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Rajiv Sharma, J (Oral): 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, for clarity sake, facts of CWP No. 6550/2010-G have been taken into consideration. 2. Petitioners were permitted to construct shops on Khasra No. 343 in the year 1994. They started paying rent @ Rs.150/- per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.400/-. Petitioners leases/tenancies/licences were cancelled on 15.3.2005. They assailed the notices issued on 15.3.2005 by filing CWP Nos. 217/2005 to 249/2005. These writ petitions were disposed of the Division Bench of this Court on 23.6.2005 by issuing the following directions: 1.) As stated by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur in his affidavit dated 20th June, 2005, the construction of new shopping complex upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 689 shall be completed by 25th August, 2005. Upon completion of this shopping complex, th...
State of H.P. Vs. Mahender Singh and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
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 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 23.12.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.8.2001, at 9.30 a.m., a telephonic message was received at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, that one Parvinder resident of village Alothi has been murdered and police should come and investigate. This information was recorded vide rapat No. 3 dated 16.8.2001. S.H.O. alongwith other police officials proceeded to the spot. He thereafter recorded the statement of Kaushalya Devi, mother of the deceased, in which she had stated that her husband is already dead and she has two sons, namely Parvinder, now deceased and Mohinder, respondent and third her step son Jageshwar, respondent. It was alleged that all the three brothers were living ...
Ashok Sehgal Vs. State of H.P and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
1. This petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing statements/ confessions of respondents No. 3 to 6 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solan, under section 164 Cr.P.C. and for quashing the orders of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solan, granting pardon to respondents No. 3, 4, under sections 306 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts in brief, as per petitioner, are that an FIR No.10/2009 dated 9.7.2009, has been registered at State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan against petitioner and one another. The respondent No. 2 is the complainant, but despite that he investigated the case. The respondent No. 2 was transferred from Special Investigation Unit to Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla in July 2009; he had no power to investigate the case registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan. 3. The respondent No. 2 had personal interest in false implication of the petitioner, he threatened the respo...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›