Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2000CriLJ4207
ORDERM.R. Verma, J.1. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail in two cases, namely, (i) F. I. R. lodged on the basis of the report of the Divisional Commissioner Mandi, and (ii) in the F. I. R., if any, lodged on the basis of an earlier inquiry pending against him, both for the commission of offences punishable under Section 5 of the Corruption Act or any other non-bailable offences which might have been registered against him. It has been averred in the application that the petitioner who is due to retire on 31 -12-1999 has been falsely implicated and is innocent and has not committed any irregularity in the purchase of cold Bitumen which has been purchased by him through negotiation and by following the proper procedure, the inquiry on the basis of which he is alleged to have made the said purchases illegally is biased, false and has been made with a view to malign the image of the petitioner without any basis. Regarding the second case it has been averre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.5.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Sessions Case No.01 of 2006, Sessions trial No.4 of 2006, whereby the appellant, who was charged with and tried for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 25,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. He was also held entitled to the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 14.9.2005 S.I. Diwan Chand (PW-26), Station House Officer, Police Station, Amb, District Una received a telephonic message from A.S.I. Vishwas Kumar (PW- 22), Incharge, Police Post, Chintpurni regarding the murder of one lady in Sahil Hotel, Chintpurni. On receipt of this information, PW-26 reached Sahil Hotel, Chintpurni where Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992HP11
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree passed on July 30, 1982, by Additional District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan, dismissing the appeal of defendants-appellants and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh, dated January 9, 1980, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.2. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that he was in possession of land measuring (a) 46 kanals 15 marlas situate in village Rajpura, Tehsil Nalagarh and (b) 35 kanals 2 marlas situate in village Rangoowal in Tehsil Nalagarh as a tenant under defendants-appellants and that the order passed on July 6, 1977 by the Land Reforms Officer, Nalagarh, in proceedings initiated by defendants under Section 30 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Act No. 8 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was illegal, void, without jurisdiction and ineffective and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976HP61
D.B. Lal, J.1. Shri Ajit Kumar filed Civil Writ Petition No. Ill of 1974, wherein he sought for the quashing of the impugned orders, Annexures 'G' and 'J' to the petition whereby he was reverted from the post of Deputy General Manager (Works) in the Transport Department His case was, that he was appointed Deputy General Manager (Works) in the vacancy caused by the transfer of one Shri I. C. Mahajan to the Government of India. According to petitioner, his appointment was on probation for a period of two years and as such could not be held ad hoc. The appointment was also made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Subsequently Shri I. C. Mahajan returned from the Government of India and as a result to that Shri Ajit Kumar was reverted by notification Annexure 'G' dated November 7, 1973. Subsequently he was appointed officiating Deputy General Manager in the Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Corporation but from that post also he was reverted vide Annexure 'J' in April 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : I(1990)ACC184,1990ACJ291,AIR1990HP82
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. These matters (F. A. O. No. 135 of 1982, Krishna Chadha and others v. National Carriers and others, F.A.O. No. 136 of 1982, Smt. M. J. Stone and others v. National Carriers and others, and F.A.O. No. 137 of 1982, Krishna and another v. National Carriers and others), arise out of the same accident and common award, therefore, they are being taken up together for decision by a common judgment.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petrol tanker No. HRA-1807, owned by the National Carriers, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt., and driven by Shri Gajinder Singh, was coming from Sungra towards Wangtu Bridge on 20-12-1968 while a military truck No. S.C. 15455 was coming from Wangtoo side. The collision between these two vehicles took place on a curve and the result was that the occupants of the army vehicle rolled down to river Satluj leaving no trace of any of them including the vehicle.3. The claimants are the dependents of three of the five occupants of the army vehicle, namel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2603
ORDERD.P. Sood, J.1. All these four Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of the same First Information Report No. 17 of 1990 registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Zone, Shimla. As such I proceed to decide them by a common order.2. The crucial point involved for determination in these revision petitions is:'Whether cognizance of the offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(New) corresponding to Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, could be taken by Special Judge, Shimla when sanction in relation to the prosecution of the petitioner had been refused by the competent authority?'3. As a corollary thereto another important question for the consideration of this Court arises in case Special Judge, Shimla is held to be empowered to take cognizance of the offence without sanction of the competent authority, could such a Court take cognizance of the offences committed by a public servant under Penal Code during the discharge of his official ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. Appeals, in which the same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 30th November, 2004, of learned Special Judge, has been assailed, are being disposed of. Two persons have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, vide impugned judgment. They have filed separate appeals. So, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Case of the prosecution may be stated thus. There is a village, by the name of Kohila in Ani Sub Division of Kullu District. Prem Dass, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2004, retired as Kanoongo from Revenue Department, in the year 1985. Before being promoted as Kanoongo, he served as Patwari. On account of his being a member of field staff of Revenue Department, he made friends with Kartar Chand, appellant in the second appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No.521 of 2004. Appellant Kartar Chand was posted as Patwari in Kohila Mohal, during the period 1988 to 1991. He handed over the charge to PW-16 Ram Sarup. Appellant Prem Dass, who is permanent residen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002HP12
ORDERArun Kumar Goel, J. 1. This is defendant's secondappeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1994, passed by the then learned District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts at Mandi in. Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1990. While dismissing the appeal of the defendant, the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Sarkaghat in Civil Suit No. 110-1/88 dated 30-4-1990, has been upheld. By means of said decree, trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff, permanently restraining the defendant from Interfering in the possession of plaintiff on the suit land. While passing the decree, trial Court had further ordered that the possession of the plaintiff be deemed on behalf of other co-sharers as well as the decree shall enure for their benefit too. 2. Suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming that he jointly owns the land comprised in Khewat No. 53 min/115 min. Khasra No. 88, measuring 0-8-43 hectare, situate in Village Kalkhar, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986HP67
ORDERP.D. Desai, C.J.1. The appeal is directed against the decision of the learned District Judge, Shimla, refusing to condone the delay in presenting an appeal on the ground that sufficient cause, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was not made out and consequently dismissing the appeal.2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was dismissed on April 30, 1975. At the time when the judgment was pronounced, though the learned counsel for the appellant was present, the appellants themselves were not present. The appellants applied for the certified copies of the judgment and the decree on June 2, 1975, and on October 30, 1975 respectively and they were delivered to them on July 22, 1975 and on December 3, 1975, respectively. Be it stated that the case of the appellants, which is supported by the material on record, is that a certified copy of the decree was also applied for on June 2, 1975 but they were informed at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2000)ILLJ926HP
Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner is working as an officer JMS - I with the respondent-bank. He has filed the above writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated November 3, 1993 (Annexure P-9) whereby after holding departmental disciplinary proceedings, he was awarded major penalty of removal from bank's service with immediate effect, and order dated June 27, 1994 (Annexure P-12) whereby his appeal against the order of his removal from bank's service was rejected. Since the operation of these impugned orders remained stayed during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner continues to be in service.2. On the allegations against the petitioner that while working as Branch Manager, Durlaghat during the period from July 15, 1982 to April 2, 1986, he advanced loan of Rs. 20,000/- to nonexistent borrowers in fictitious names, he was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case under Sections 420, 120-B, 465,467, 468 and 477-A, I.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention ...
Tag this Judgment!