Court : Himachal Pradesh
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge setting aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against respondent No. 1 by the disciplinary authority.2. The undisputed facts are that respondent No. 1, a member of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service, was served with a Memorandum of Charge dated 1.10.1997 charging him on twelve counts of misconduct. After enquiry, he was held guilty of the charges detailed below:Article of ChargesFindings of the Inquiry OfficerArticle-IThat the said Shri Manoj Kumar Bansal while functioning as Sub Judge-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Sarkaghat during the period from 22.1.1996 to 7.6.1997 had procured the presence of Shri Bhalkhu Ram, Operator ofAuto Rikshaw No. HP-05-0209 through the policeofficials of the Police Station, Sarkaghat on 23.7.1996 in his chamberand engaged under pressure his Auto Rikshawfor carrying his wife daily from r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC310
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 19.6.2001 of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rendered in OA No. (D) 237/1996.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the members of the petitioner's union (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners for convenience sake) retired from the service of the respondent-corporation prior to 5.6.1995. The respondent-corporation formulated a scheme called 'Himachal Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Scheme, 1995' (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme' for convenience sake). The scheme was implemented with effect from 5.6.1995. The petitioners were left out from the ambit of the scheme. The petitioners preferred an original application before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. It was primarily averred in the original application that the cut-off date i.e. 5.6.1995 has no reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1922,2009(1)ShimLC271
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 17.1.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-accused and set-aside the judgment of the learned trial Court whereby the accused has been convicted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and undergosimple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and also to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 338 IPC. In case of default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under each count. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The admitted facts are that on 25.8.1994 the accused was driving a mini Motor Cycle on a Dangri-Kangoo road. It is also not disputed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant is the wife of the absconding accused Sita Ram Vats. He remained posted as Sub-Post Master in Sub Post office Kiari, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. w.e.f. 1986 to 1990. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. In brief, the prosecution story goes like this. Sub-Post Office, Kiari was a one man office, where Sita Ram Vats aforesaid was working as a sub-Post Master. A large number of National Saving Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patras, Indira Vikas Patras and Social Security Certificates, valuing lacks of rupees were entrusted to him in his capacity as a Sub Post Master, Kiari to sell them to the intending purchasers. He is alleged to have sold securities worth Rs. 23,79,950/-, but he misappropriated the same and did not account for it. It was further alleged that some of the National Saving Certificates and Indira ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 9.9.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the accused on merits but reduced the sentence to 3 months. He modified the judgment of the learned trial Court whereby the accused had been convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four months for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that on 6.2.1999 at about 4 p.m. the accused Mohd. Shaffi was driving Maruti car bearing registration No. HP-02-1323 near the main bus st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC438
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the claimant has been filed for enhancement of compensation.2. The admitted facts are that the claimant is a labourer. He was travelling in Truck No. HP- 14-4817 in the capacity of cleaner/labourer. The said truck met with an accident. The claimant suffered serious injuries in the accident. He was first taken to PHC Chandi. Thereafter, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he remained admitted from 3.5.2002 to 12.5.2002.3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) allowed the claim petition. It found that the petitioner had sustained 75% disability and also found that the petitioner was working as labourer. Learned Tribunal however without even assessing the income of the injured allowed the compensation to the petitioner as follows:1. For pain and sufferings : Rs. 20,000/-2. For loss of amenities : Rs. 40,000/-3. For shortened expectancy of lifeOn account of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2126
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. 36-S/7 of 1991 decided on 18th December, 1993 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, which unfolded during the course of the trial, is that on 21-3-1991 in the evening, the prosecutrix left her school and came by bus to Summer Hill. Thereafter, she was walking down the path to her house in village Sangti. On the way she met the accused who enquired if she (the prosecutrix) had seen his dog. He then started walking with her and enquired her name, etc. When the accused and the prosecutrix had walked some portion on this path the accused pointed out another path to the prosecutrix and told her that his dog might have gone that way. He asked the prosecutrix to accompany him. Firstly, she refused to accompany him but later on she agreed on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC445
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present cross objections, registered at No. 67 of 2001, in FAO No. 488 of 2000, have been referred to a Larger Bench, i.e. Division Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who while sitting as Single Judge, even though deciding the main appeal i.e. FAO No. 488 of 2000 felt that question involved in the cross objections needed to be considered by D.B. From the judgment of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, it appears that when the FAO 488/2000 and cross objections were being heard together, a question was raised by the claimants, who filed the present cross objections, that the deceased, being an Engineer in Government service, was likely to reach higher levels in service career, both in terms of status and salary and, therefore, his likely future increase in salary/income was also required to be taken into account, while determining the multiplicand, i.e. to say the figure of annual loss of dependency.2. Hon'ble Chief Justice not only referred the cross objections to the Lar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC33
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una in civil appeal No. 99/1994.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Amb on the allegation that the suit land was earlier in possession of one Santu son of Falla as tenant, who was father of the plaintiff. He used to pay rent to the owners. It is further alleged that after the death of Santu, the suit land came in possession of the plaintiff as tenant and thereafter she was in possession of the land as a tenant. The appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' for convenience sake) resisted the suit of the plaintiff and filed a written statement. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC80
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The appellant, beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings, is aggrieved with the order dated 21.5.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Petition No. 1-S/4 of 2000 titled as H.P. Housing Board v. Ram Karan and Ors. for the reasons that its application filed under Section 28-A(3) read with Section 18(2)-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stands dismissed.2. Primarily, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the beneficiary's application under Section 28-A(3) of the Act, in effect being restitution proceedings, is maintainable or not and as to whether the claimants who have received the amount pursuant to an Award passed under Section 28-A are entitled to retain the amount received in excess of the final determination of the market value in an appeal under Section 54 of the Act or Article 136 of the Constitution of India.3. For the public purpose, namely, establishment ...
Tag this Judgment!