Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2003CriLJ386
ORDERR.L. Khurana, J.1. The above-noted 14 revision petitions have been taken up by this Court in exercise of suo motu revisional powers under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In all these cases a common question of law is involved as to what is the effect of a judgment recorded and pronounced by a Magistrate and such Magistrate failed to sign the same before his death? Therefore, all the above-noted cases are being disposed of by this single Judgment.3. The respondent, Surat Singh in Cr. R. No. 105 of 2002, was tried for the offences under Sections 273, 337 and 201, Indian Penal Code and under Section 184, Motor Vehicles Act. He was acquitted of such offences on 17-10-2001.4. In Cr. R. No 103 of 2002, the twelve respondents, Hari Dutt and others, were tried for the offences, under Sections 147, 148, 353 and 332 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted of such offences on 22-8-2001.5. Respondent Smt. Nirmala Devi in Cr. R. No. 104 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J. CMP No.5518/2011 1. Heard. The application is not opposed. Allowed. Priyanka Thakur is permitted to be added as petitioner No.4. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. The application stands disposed of. Core issue involved for adjudication in this petition is: whether the action of the respondent-State not to reserve seats for the candidates belonging to backward areas in I.G.M.C. Shimla is unconstitutional? Respondent No.4-University issued prospectus on behalf of State of Himachal Pradesh for holding combined Pre- Medical Entrance Test for graduate (M.B.B.S./B.D.S.) courses in Himachal Pradesh for academic session 2011- 2012. The last date for submission of application, as per prospectus, was 30.4.2011. It is evident from the prospectus issued by respondent No.4-University that no seats have been reserved for the candidates belonging to backward areas in I.G.M.C. Shimla. Two Seats have been reserved for this category in Dr. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1384
H.S. Thakur, J.1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated August 11,1978, of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu & Lahaul-Spiti districts at Mandi, whereby the accused/respondents were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.2. Necessary facts to decide this appeal may be stated. The respondent Govind Ram was Charged under Sections 302, 147/149, 148/149 and 149 I.P.C. whereas the respondents Balku, Chuharu, Smt. Purnu and Gawainu were charged under Sections 147/149, 148/149 and 324 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that on June, 5, 1974 at village Rao within Police Station, Balh, all the respondents with an intention to commit .offences and to intimidate the complainant's party, formed an unlawful assembly and, armed with axes, 'drants' sickles and 'dandas' forcibly entered into the fields belonging to Bhagirath and Mania sons of Gayahru. Govind Ram respondent had an axe, Balku accused a 'drant' while accused Chuharu had also an axe. Smt. Purnu and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1525
Chet Ram Thakur, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that the order and judgment of the learned District Magistrate, Kinnaur District at Kalpa, dated the 31st July, 1972, be quashed.2. The present respondent had filed a petition under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Nyaya Panchayat Kalpa on 31st December, 1970 fou maintenance to herself from the present petitioner in this Court on the allegations that according to the custom prevailing in their JJaqa she was a legally married wife of the petitioner and that he had cohabited with her on that right and as a result of that she also conceived a child. When the petitioner saw that the respondent had conceived he tried to get rid of her and somehow or other turned her away from his house on 24th December, 1970. It was on that ground that she laid the petition under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2000ACJ666
L.S. Panta, J.1. Petitioners, namely, Abhilasha (widow), Sushil Kumar and Kuldip Kumar (minor sons) of deceased Hira Singh, have filed this writ petition claiming Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 18 per cent on account of death of said Hira Singh, who died in the forest shed alleged to have been constructed by the respondent Corporation.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present case are as follows:Hira Singh was a registered labour supply mate of the respondent Corporation. He had been undertaking works on behalf of the respondent Corporation for felling, conversion of timber, fuel wood, manual carriage, ropeway carriage besides extraction of resin. He submitted his tender for extraction of resin for 1997-98 season. His tender was accepted by the respondent Corporation and an agreement was entered into between the parties. On 27.7.1997, Hira Singh went to the Forest Depot in Forest Division, Nerwa, for weighing the resin. When he was sitting in the fore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1987HP34
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. Yesterday we passed an order allowing the petition but the judgment could not be delivered for want of time. We proceed to do so now.The factual matrix :2. The petitioner is the wife of the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the: respondent'). The parties were married in the month of February, 1980. After the marriage, the respondent has been living with the petitioner in a house constructed by her parents. Two sons (twins) were born out of. the wedlock in the month of May, 1981. Thepetitioner alleges that the respondent, Who is a habitual drunkard, has been maltreating her since 1982. Frequent quarrels and cruel beatings have almost become a daily routine.3. According to the petitioner, the respondent returned home at about 9 a.m. on July 12, 1986. He was under the influence of liquor. He asked for the custody of the children since he wanted to go away with them. When the petitioner refused to oblige, he tried to forcibly snatch away the children. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1979CriLJ216
ORDERT.U. Mehta, J.1. This revision application is filed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, District Sirmur at Nahan in Cr. M. P. No. 18-N/4 of 1977 on 7-12-1977 with regard to the disposal of the case property under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that the present petitioner, who is accused of the offences under Sections 379/420/467/ 468/120-B, I.P.C. read with Section 8 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has felled some trees belonging to the Government and, therefore, certain pieces of timber which the petitioner has obtained from these felled trees are stolen property, It is found that the police, during the investigation, has seized this property, and thereafter on 9-11-1977, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (Crime), Himachal Pradesh, Simla made an application to the learned Special Judge for auction of this property as contemplated by Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent in reply to this petition submitted that he had f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ245
ORDERT.R. Handa, J.1. Sh, Arjun Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused', has been convicted for the offences falling Under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.P.C by the Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamsala vide his judgment dated 12-1-1982. Subsequently vide his order dated 21-1-1982 the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the said conviction. In terms of the directions of the Sessions Judge the amount of fine was to be paid to the victim of the rape through her father as compensation.2. The accused has filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1982 to challenge his above conviction and sentence. The State has also preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1982 against the above order of sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the accused This Court also took suo motu notice of the sentence imposed on the accused for the offences Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1030
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. An application received by one of us (Chief Justice) was registered as a writ petition. The application was made by a retired employee of the State Government who was at the time of his retirement working in the office of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur in the capacity of a clerk.2. On April 28, 1969, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The services of the petitioner were terminated on Feb. 3, 1971. The order of termination was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 61 of 1971 : Reported in ILR (1974) Him Pra 296 which was decided in favour of the petitioner on Mar. 15,1974 by a learned single Judge of this Court by quashing the termination order and giving a further direction to the effect that 'the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service right from the date the impugned order was passed' and that 'he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits arising as a result of the quashing of the order.'3. The decision of the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1991CriLJ400
ORDERBhawani Singh, J.1. Shri Kewal Gupta, petitioner, approaches this Court through this revision petition and urges to set aside the order of judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (2), Nurpur, in Criminal Case No. 92/2.87, decided on 27-9-1988, whereby the trial Judge allowed the application of the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 342/384/506 of the Indian Penal Code. After the framing of the charge, the Court proceeded to record the prosecution evidence. On 18-6-1988, the trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant, Shri Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 1). While recording the statement of this witness, names of Shri Kailash Chand, s/o Shri Jagat Ram, Shri Sundri s/o Shri Jai Chand and Shri Satish s/o Shri Tek Chand were introduced and it was stated that these persons saw the occurrence. On this revelation, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!