Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR375
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. This matter arises out of the following facts:-One Anil Midha filed Crl. Misc. No. 56791-M of 2004 in this Court praying for the grant of anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 198 dated 25.9.2004 Police Station City Abohar, Distt. Ferozepur registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Notice of motion was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab for appearance on behalf of the State for 26.10.2004. The matter could not be taken up on that day and was adjourned to 2.11.2004 by order. It was thereafter listed before M.M.Kumar J, at Sr. No. 236 of the list for that date and was entrusted by the Advocate General, Punjab to Sh. K.K.Beniwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for defence. As per the facts that have now come on record, it appears that at about 11.00 A.M. Sh. C.M.Munjal, who was the Senior Additional Advocate General, Punjab and an officer Senior in rank to Mr. Beniwal took the brief from him on instructions orally given by the Advocate General to S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2244; II(2005)DMC464
Mehtab S. Gill, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 740-DB of 2002 has been filed against the judgment dated 10-9-2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri whereby appellant Pardeep Kumar was convicted under Sections 302 and 304-B I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 I. P. C. No separate sentence under Section 304-B I. P. C. was awarded to appellant Pardeep Kumar. Appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar were convicted under Section 304-B I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years. Though all the three accused were convicted under Section 498-A I. P. C. also, but no separate sentence was awarded to them, as they had been sentenced for the major sentence.2. The prosecution case is unfolded by PW-4 Kewal Krishan, complainant. He has stated that he is a resident of Ambala City. He is the Director of G. G. Flour Mills. He has four daughters and two sons. Marriage of his eldest daughter Suman Rani alias Anamika was solemnised with appellant Pardeep Kumar alia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR423
M.M. Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed by Ex.Hav. Jaipal under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 8.5.2002 (Annexure P.3) passed by the First Appellate Committee upholding the order dated 4.10.2000 passed by the Principal Controller Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (for brevity, 'CDA'). The CDA had rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension on the ground that invalidating disability, namely, Generalised Seizure was neither attributable to or aggravated by the military service. It was further observed that the disease Generalised Seizure which resulted into invalidating out the petitioner was constitutional in nature and had nothing to do with the service. A further prayer has been made for issuance of directions to the respondents for release of disability pension because he has been assessed to be disabled to the extent of 20% in terms of paragraph 173 of Pension Regulations, 1961 (as amended) (for brevity, 'Pension Regulations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)141PLR63
Viney Mittal, J.1. The applicant-appellants filed the present application seeking review of the order dated May 14, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge.2. Regular Second Appeal No. 4311 of 1986 filed by the present applicants, Wassan Singh and another was disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties and suit of the non-applicant/plaintiffs i.e. Lakha Singh and others was dismissed. It was further ordered that the compromise (Annexure 'C') shall form part of the decree.3. A suit for possession of the land measuring 26 kanals 8 marlas was filed by Lakha Singh and Mukha sons of Arjan Singh, Smt. Giano and Mohindro daughters of Arjan Singh against Wassan Singh and Ram Singh sons of Manna Singh and others. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated April 15, 1985. Defendants Wassan Singh and others went in appeal. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated October 29, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR481
M.M. Kumar, J. 1. This petitioner filed under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Sections 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') prays for setting aside order dated 10.1.2005 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Id. Addl. District Judge Bhatinda. The plaintiff-petitioners No. 2 and 4 have filed a civil suit for declaration seeking permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents. In the suit a prayer was made for restraining Municipal Committee, Bathinda respondent N o. 8 from changing entry in the column of ownership in the House Tax Assessment Registrar regarding Building No. 4443, situated at Old Satta Bazar, Bathinda from the name of plaintiff-petitioner No. 2 to any other name. A further direction was sought restraining defendant-respondent No. 1 from alienating any portion of the house and 1/2 share of plot No. 73 situated at Sector 15-A Noida. Along with the suit an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed see...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : III(2005)ACC521; (2005)140PLR484
M.M. Kumar, J. 1. The New India Assurance Company (for brevity 'the Company') has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the instant petition for quashing order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. The Tribunal has declined the prayer of the Company for a declaration that there is collusion between the parties to defraud the petitioner. Consequently, the application filed by the Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'The Act') has been dismissed by recording the following short order:'Learned counsel for the petitioners has made statement closing his evidence after tendering copy of post-mortem report.Reply to the application Under Section 170 of M.V.Act also Filed. Heard. Since the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are contesting the petition and have filed written statement controverting the facts stated in the petition, so it cannot be said that there is any collusion between ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR766
V.K. Bali, J.1. Triloki Nath Gupta, the appellant herein served for 30 years and 3 months; 15 years and 9 months in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive and Judicial) and 14 years and 6 months in the Superior Judicial Service. If he had served for 33 years, concededly, he would have earned full pension. Having marginally fallen short of the requisite period entitling him to full pension, he relied upon Rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II and on the basis thereof, sought special addition to the qualifying service. He also complained of discrimination between direct recruits and promotees in Punjab Superior Judicial Services in the matter of counting the period of practice for the purpose of pension with regard to direct recruits and non-counting of period of promotees, which he spent while serving in Punjab Judicial Service. He lost on both counts. Writ petition filed by him was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.5.1994. Hence present Letters Patent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2131; II(2005)DMC342
Uma Nath Singh, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in the Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1992, wherein, though the accused was only tried upon a charge under Section 302, IPC, but has been convicted under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to a period of 7 years RI without giving him opportunity to place his defence thereunder obviously under impression that the offence under Section 304-B, IPC is minor to the one under Section 302, IPC.2. The relevant facts of the prosecution case as stated in the impugned judgment on being extracted and reproduced read as under :--'2. Sudesh Kumari daughter of Umed Singh resident of village Kawali, District Sonepat, was married to Suresh Kumar accused about nine months before her death which occurred on 22-3-1991. The case of the prosecution is that 11/2 month before her death Sudesh Kumari visited the house of her parents and told them that she was asked to bring tele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)43; IV(2005)BC120; 2005CriLJ2396; (2005)140PLR801
ORDERV.M. Jain, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioners seeking quashment of the criminal complaint dated 20-8-1990 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) filed by the complainant respondent and also seeking quashment of order dated 10-9-1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, whereby the accused were ordered to be summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and the order dated 13-10-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate holding that the complaint in respect of cheque for Rs. 35,189/- was well within time and directing that notice shall be issued in the criminal complaint only in respect of the said cheque and also challenging the order dated 21-9-99 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the Revision Petition filed by the accused-petitioners against the order dated 13-10-1997 was dismissed.2. The facts in brief are that on 27-8-1990, complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2118
Nirmal Singh, J.1. Cri. A.No. 132-DB of 2004 has been filed by the appellants-Raj Singh, Ram Mehar and Kuldeep against the judgment and order dated 22/24-1-2004 vide which they were convicted and sentenced as under :--Raj Singh Under Section 302, IPC To undergo imprisonmentRam Mehar for life and to pay a fine ofRs. 10,000/- each. Indefault of payment of fine,they were further directedto undergo R.I. for oneyear each.Kuldeep Under Section 307, I.P.C. To undergo R.I. for 4 yearsSingh and to pay a fine ofRs. 20,000/-. In default ofpayment of fine, to furtherundergo R.I. for one year.2. Criminal Appeal No. 737 DBA of 2004 has been filed by the State against acquittal of Kamlesh, Raj Bala, Sandeep and Kuldeep while Criminal Revision No. 1081 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the acquittal of Kamlesh, Raj Bala, Sandeep and Kuldeep and also for enhancement of fine. Since both the appeals as well as criminal revision have been filed against the same judgment and orde...
Tag this Judgment!