Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1998CriLJ942
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Lakhminder Singh-petitioner was tried and held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Bangalore. It was alleged that the offence was committed on 22-6-1987; The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore held the petitioner guilty of the said offence on 5-1-1989. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner applied for his transfer to the State of Punjab. On 3-4-1992 the Inspector General of Prisons sent memo to Inspector General of Prisons, Karnataka. By virtue of the same consent was given for transfer of the convict on reciprocal basis. The said consent reads :-Reference on the subject letter No. 5169-GI/ G-6, dated 25-9-1991 on the subject noted above.2. This department has already conveyed concurrence vide letter under reference the transfer of convict cited as subject to the State on reciprocal basis. Accordingly you are requested to make necessary arrangements for his tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 14, 2014 Vikramjit Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.SS Goraya, Advocate for Mr.Saurav Kharana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.PS Grewal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.MS Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr.RS Khaira, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.5.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Swaran Singh and Prabhjot Kaur i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 herein as additional accused to face trial along with main accused Dilraj Singh has been dismissed.2. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.3. Brief facts that would requir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 /1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 Date of Decision: February 10, 2014 Harmeet Singh @ Heero and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.96 dated 1.5.2010, under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25,54,59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa on the basis of compromise which, as per the counsel, has been arrived at between the accused party and the complainant party.2. It would be pertinent to notice, at the very outset, that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of Crl.Misc.No.M-2938 of 2014 raising identical prayer, but the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1988(15)ECC192; 1988(36)ELT432(P& H)
I.S. Tiwana, J.1. These eight petitions (Cr. Misc. Nos. 1271-M, 1274-M, 1277-M& 1280-M of 1985 and 1835-M, 1837-M, 1839-M & 1841 -M of 1987) are being disposed of together on account of the similarity of facts and the contentions raised therein. However, to deal with the various points raised by Mr. H.L learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners effectively, these deserve to be divided into two groups - the first four forming one set and the remaining four, another, firstly the facts of the first set.2. As a result of the four complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi alleging the violation of the various conditions of the four import licences granted in favour of the petitioners, they were summoned by the Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, vide his order dated January 7, 1984 to face trial under Section 6 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The details of these complaints w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Criminal Misc. No.2189 of 2014 in 1 Criminal Appeal No.S- 3958-SB of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.2189 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal No.S- 3958-SB of 2013 Date of Decision: March 06, 2014 Dr.O.P.Mahajan .......Applicant-appellant (Presently confined in Central Jail, Amritsar) Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.PS Ahluwalia, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr.KS Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.The applicant-appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 2.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for offences punishable under Section 18 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (for short '1994 Act') and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, in terms of order of sentence dated 8.11.2013, has been sentenced as under: i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H377; 1960CriLJ993
ORDER(1) The record of this case has been forwarded to this Court by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, with a recommendation that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rewari, dated 6th of March, 1959, be set aside and the learned Magistrate be directed to try the case according to law afresh.(2) Ch. Ram Sarup has appeared before me in support of the reference and Mr. V. P. Prashar has opposed the recommendation. On a perusal of the record I find that Shri Manohar Lal had made an application under section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure, against Sukh Ram Singh, Sarpanch of village Gangaicha Ahir, to which he complainant also belongs. The allegations contained in the application are that Sukh Ram Singh had made an unlawful obstruction on a public thoroughfare by constructing a chabutra and this had narrowed down the thoroughfare.After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate issued a conditional order in pursuance of which Sukh Ram Singh Sarpanch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1962P& H487
ORDER(1) The petitioner, Vidya Sagar, resident of Patiala, was arrested on 28th August, 1961, on the allegation that on 16th August, 1961, he had made a speech in the Gurdawara Sri Dukh Niwaran Sahib, Patiala, which disclosed an offence under section 6(2) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 30 of 1960. The case against him was registered at the Civil Lines Police Station, Patiala, on 19th of August, 1961m vide first information report No. 83. During all these days the case has not been put in Court and the petitioner has been in custody. Now, he applies for being admitted to bail.(2) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that even on the allegations contained in the first information report no offence under Section 6(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1960, is disclosed, and the continued detention of the petitioner without ever putting the case in Court was abuse of the process of law as the authorities are anxious to keep him in custody by hook or crook being aware of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CRM M-42904 of 2013(O&M) 1 CRM M-40579 of 2012(O&M) CRM M-38098 of 2012(O&M) CRM M-38099 of 2012(O&M) CRM M-40575 of 2012(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH --- CRM M-42904 of 2013(O&M) M/S.Tata Chemicals LTD.and another ---Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ---Respondent CRM M-40579 of 2012(O&M) M/S.Tata Chemicals LTD.and another ---Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ---Respondent CRM M-38098 of 2012(O&M) M/S.Tata Chemicals LTD.and another ---Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ---Respondent CRM M-38099 of 2012(O&M) M/S.Tata Chemicals LTD.and another ---Petitioners Versus Kumar Sudhir S201403.03 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM M-42904 of 2013(O&M) 2 CRM M-40579 of 2012(O&M) CRM M-38098 of 2012(O&M) CRM M-38099 of 2012(O&M) CRM M-40575 of 2012(O&M) State of Haryana ---Respondent CRM M-40575 of 2012(O&M) M/S.Tata Chemicals LTD.and another ---Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Date of Decision: February...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1958P& H372; 1958CriLJ1220
S.B. Capoor, J. 1. The legal question raised in this case and referred to the Full Bench is whether the proceedings under Sections 21 and 23 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No. IV of 1953), hereinafter referred to as the Act, are of an administrative or of an executive nature, so that a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not He to this Court.2. It has been conceded before us that Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to such proceedings and accordingly it remains only necessary to determine the applicability to them of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. Section 21 of the Act confers on a Gram Panchayat as defined in the Act the power to require removal of an encroachment and nuisance and is in the following terms:'21. (1) A Gram Panchayat on receiving a report or other information and on taking such evidence, if any, as it thinks fit, may make a condit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H80; 1960CriLJ275
Dua, J.(1) The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the order of the Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, dated 30-7-1958, is without jurisdiction and therefore illegal and void as found by the learned Sessions Judge and whether the lower appellate Court was justified in setting aside the said order without considering the appeal on the merits.(2) Giani Ram brought a complaint against Attar Chand and 4 others under Ss. 447, 448/147 of the India Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, however summoned only Attar Chand and Gurdas Mal and after trial found them both technically guilty of the offence under S. 447, Indian Penal Code. On this finding they were fined Rs. 51/- each.(3) Feeling aggrieved the two accused went up in appeal to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. The lower appellate Court has observed that after recording preliminary enquiry the learned Magistrate had summoned Attar Chand and Gurdas Mal only under S. 447 of the Indian Penal Code and offence u...
Tag this Judgment!