Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC142
surjit singh, j.1. these two appeals, one by the state of himachal pradesh and the other by mr. jens astrup, are directed against the same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 30.11.1996 of sessions court, kullu, whereby mr. jens astrup, who was tried for offences, under section 20 of the drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985, section 14 of the foreigners act and section 419 ipc, has been convicted for the later mentioned two offences and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of rs. 3000, in respect of offence, under section 14 of the foreigners act and to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of rs. 1000, in respect of offence, under section 419 ipc, but has been acquitted of the offence, under section 20 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act.2. mr. jens astrup, hereinafter called accused, has appealed against his conviction and sentence for the aforesaid two offences, while the state has appealed against his acquittal, in respect of offence, under section 20 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985.3. case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the record, is like this. accused jens astrup was apprehended on 1.1.1996 at manikaran. on seeing the police, he tried to run away. police official, namely pw-9 h.c. bhagi rath, suspected that he was carrying some contraband with him. so, he told him that it was intended to search his person and he had a right to be searched in the presence of a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
v.k. ahuja, j.1. this order shall dispose of the application filed by the petitioners under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure for grant of bail in fir no. 2/09 dated 8.10.2009 registered by police station cid, shimla, under section 20 of ndps act, 1985. a notice of the application was issued to the state. the learned assistant advocate general submitted the police report in cr.mp(m) no. 377 of 2010 titled rajesh kumar v. state of h.p.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the report of the police.3. the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners were that the petitioners and their three accomplices have been arrested for commission of an offence under section 20 of the ndps act. according to the prosecution, on receipt of secret information, the police checked the car in question in which the petitioners and other occupants were traveling and it recovered charas weighing 3 kg. and 900 gms. in all. it was submitted that the quantity recovered can be termed as commercial but in view of the fact that there is a judgment of a division bench of this court that the quantity of resin found in the recovered charas can only be termed as charas and since, according to the report of expert the said quantity was only to the extent of 24.46% out of total quantity which comes to less than 1 kg. and therefore, the quantity was not commercial. the decision in dharam pal v. state of h.p. latest hlj 2007 (hp) 827 was relied upon .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal pradesh
1. this appeal has been directed against common judgment, decree dated 18.12.1997 passed by the learned district judge, kangra at dharamshala in civil appeal no. 87-n/xiii-1997 and cross-objection no.107-n/xiii-1997 affirming judgment, decree dated 23.8.1997 passed by learned sub judge (1), nurpur in civil suit no. 391 of 1992 decreeing the suit of the respondents partly holding that respondents are in possession of the suit land as hissedar and revenue entry showing them to be in possession as kabaz is wrong. the appellant has also been restrained from interfering in the possession of the respondents on land measuring whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?yes 20-32-63 hm more specifically described in the operative part of the judgment of the trial court. 2. the facts, in brief, are that wakil singh, predecessorin-interest of respondents 1(a) to 1(e) and respondents no.2 to 7 had filed a suit that they are owners in possession of land measuring 0-32-63 hm described in the plaint. the entry showing them as kabazan is wrong, illegal. the suit land originally comprised in khasra nos.252/187 min, 253/187 min, measuring 8 kanals and 7 marlas was recorded as shamlat tika hasab rasad malguzari and in possession of the respondents as hissedar prior to the year 1935-36. the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents applied for regular sanction for breaking up this land and deputy commissioner granted nautor in the year 1920 in favour of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
oral: a.m. khanwilkar, c.j. 1. admit. as short question is involved, taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. counsel for the respondents waive notice. 2. heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. this appeal takes exception to the judgment of the learned single judge dated 5th december, 2012 in cwp no. 8407 of 2012-a. the appellant had sought writ of certiorari for quashing advertisement dated 8.9.2012, annexure p-12, inviting applications for filling in vacant post of assistant professor (oral and maxillofacial surgery) by way of direct recruitment on regular basis. further direction was sought by the appellant against the respondents to fill in vacant post of assistant professor in question on regular basis only by way of promotion of lecturers, on the assertion that post for promotional category. the appellant also sought relief against the respondents to defer the process of selection for appointment to fill in the vacant post of assistant professor (oral and maxillofacial surgery), until the appellant becomes eligible for promotion on acquiring three years teaching experience. the appellant asked for further alternative relief. 4. the learned single judge, after considering the rival contentions, negatived the plea of the appellant and found that the appellant was ineligible for being considered to the post of assistant professor (oral and maxillofacial surgery). that finding has been assailed by the appellant. however, we are not inclined to over turn the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
rajiv sharma, j. respondent-state invited proposals from private investors for setting up small hydro electric projects upto 5 mw capacity for 35 identified sites. the last date of receipt of proposals was 31.12.2010. however, the same was extended upto 20.1.2011. petitioner submitted proposal on 20.1.2011 for machhad-ii (2 mw) project. respondent no.2 issued notice to the petitioner on 5.5.2012 for removing deficiencies, more particularly, with regard to computation of net worth. the last date for removal of deficiency was 26.5.2012. however, the same was extended upto 22.6.2012. petitioner claimed that he removed the deficiencies and submitted the proposal alongwith annexure p-5 on 22.6.2012. case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he has supplied the documents on 22.6.2012, but his proposal has been rejected on 25.6.2012. 2. mr. d.n. sharma has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents of rejecting the proposal of the petitioner on 25.6.2012 is illegal, arbitrary and thus violative of articles 14 and 226 of the constitution of india. 3. mr. vikas rathore, learned deputy advocate general and mr. ajeet saklani have vehemently argued that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory condition no.14 of annexure p-2 and has submitted the documents on 25.6.2012 and not on 22.6.2012, as claimed by the petitioner. 4. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. petitioner was permitted to remove the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997HP1
r.l. khurana, j. 1. we propose to dispose of the above noted two civil writ petitions by this single judgment since common question of law and facts is involved therein.2. the matrix of the cases is this. the petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the companies act. it has set up an industrial unit known as gagal cement works at barmana in district bilas-pur. for the purpose of manufacture of cement, the petitioner company gets raw material, such as, c.c.p. material, play ash,iron ore and gypsum from outside the state of himachal pradesh. the finished product, that is, cement is transported outside the state of himachal pradesh.3. the central government has framed a scheme known as transport subsidy scheme, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme'). this scheme came into effect for the state of himachal pradesh from august 24, 1973. it was to remain in operation initially till march, 1979. however the scheme has been extended from time to time. it has been last extended upto march 31, 2000. the scheme provides for disbursement of a subsidy on the transport of raw material as well as finished goods. the scheme is applicable to both new industrial units as also the existing industrial units in the selected areas. the industrial unit of the petitioner is registered under the scheme and as such, eligible for the transport subsidy. the petitioner has been granted transport subsidy on the raw materials from july, 1993 and on finished goods from april, 1984 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981HP15
v.p. gupta, j.1. this second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the district judge, mandi, dated 8th november, 1968, by which he has accepted the appeal of ram saran and others, defendants, and has set aside the judgment and decree of additional sub-judge, mandi, dated 27th june, 1967.2. the brief facts of the case are that tejinder singh and others, appellants, had filed a suit for possession against ram saran and others, respondents, on the ground that ram saran and others, (defendants), are in illegal possession of the disputed land and that they (the appellants) are the rightful owners of the suit land. this suit was contested by ram saran and others and they alleged that smt. waziro was the owner of the property and after her death her estate was inherited by khazan singh grandfather of the plaintiffs-appellants to the extent of one-third share; defendants 1 to 3, i. e., sons of puran one-third share, and defendants 4 to 6 one-third share. it may be mentioned that the present contesting respondents are defendants 1 and 3 and legal representatives of defendant 2. the appellants are the successors-in-interest of khazan singh because khazan singh is alleged to have gifted his share of the land to them. the appellants allege that the land measuring 10-13-18 bighas which belonged to smt. waziro and of which khazan singh was owner to the extent of one-third share by inheritance was got partitioned and mutation no. 219 pertaining to the partition had been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977HP18
r.s. pathak, c.j.1. this is a revision petition directed against an order of the trial court under section 10 of the code of civil procedure staying the proceedings in a suit.2. the respondent wife has filed a suit before the learned district judge, ludhiana praying for a decree for judicial separation against the petitioner husband under section 10 of the hindu marriage act. the petitioner thereafter filed a suit before the learned senior subordinate judge, mandi for a declaration that the parties are not husband and wife. during the pendency of the suit the wife applied under section 10 of the code of civil procedure for stay of proceedings in the suit on the ground that a previously instituted petition for judicial separation between the same parties was pending in the district court at ludhiana and the subject-matter of that suit was substantially the same as in the present suit. the learned subordinate judge has allowed the application and stayed the suit pending before him. the husband now applies in revision to this court.3. the revision petition has been filed under paragraph 35 of the himachal pradesh (courts) order, 1948. having regard to the grounds taken, it is plainly a petition under paragraph 35 (1) (a) of the order.4. a preliminary objection has been taken by counsel for the wife. it is urged that the revision petition is not maintainable inasmuch as it is not a 'case decided'.5. paragraph 35 (1) (a) of the himachal pradesh (courts) order, as it stands today, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989HP43
orderv.k. mehrotra, ag. c.j. 1. plaintiff hans raj akrot filed civil suit no. 497 of 1985 which is pending in the court of the sub judge 1st class, amb, in district una on being advised that the suit suffered from some legal error, he made an application under order xxiii, rule 1, c.p.c. for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. the learned sub judge disposed of this application by an order dated march 14, 1988. he allowed the application partly to the extent that the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the suit. the learned sub judge, however, refused liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter. in the operative portion the learned judge directed that the suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed as withdrawn.it is this order which is under challenge in the present revision under section 115, c.p.c. 2. notice of the revision was given to the learned asstt. advocate general who represents the state of himachal pradesh, the sole defendant-respondent. it has been heard finally today. 3. order xxiii, rule 1, c.p.c., in its material part, reads thus : -- 'i. withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim.-- (1) at any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff-may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim : provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in rules 1 to 14 of order xxxii extend, neither the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1956HP26,1956CriLJ747
ramabhadran, j.c.1. these are two appeals by the state of himachal pradesh under section 417, cr. p. c., against the orders of acquittal passed by sri devkinandan magistrate first class, nahan, in cases 26/3 and 27/3 of 1953 under section 19(f), arms act, and section 9, opium act, 1878, respectively. the appeals arise under the following circumstances:2. on 31-3-1953, the ambala police, with the assistance of nahan police, searched a house situated in mohalla rani tal, nahan bazaar, said to be the property of booti nath, respondent. it was alleged that a 303 rifle along with 49 live cartidges were recovered from that house, in addition to hill opium, weighing 8 seers 13 chhataks, vide recovery memo. ex. p. a. on the basis of these recoveries, two cases were started against the respondent, one under section 19(f), arms act, and the other under section 9, opium act, 1878. the cases were tried by sri devkinandan, magistrate first class, nahan. although the two offences were tried separately, nevertheless, the witnesses in the two cases were common and both of them were disposed of on the same day i.e., 22-6-1954, by two almost identicaljudgments. the learned magistrate came to the conclusion that the offences were not brought home to the respondent and accordingly acquitted him. feeling aggrieved by the orders of acquittal, the state government has filed these appeals under section 417, cr. p. c. arguments in the two appeals were heard on the 17th instant. as i shall show .....
Tag this Judgment!