Array
(
[0] =>
[1] =>
[2] =>
[3] =>
[4] =>
[5] =>
[6] =>
[7] =>
[8] =>
[9] =>
[10] =>
[11] =>
[12] =>
[13] =>
[14] =>
[15] =>
[16] =>
[17] =>
[18] =>
)
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2003CriLJ4223
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The four respond ents, Surinder Mohan, Biru Ram, Shashi Pal and Amar Singh, hereinafter referred to as A1, A2, A3 and A4, respectively, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions case No. 8 of 1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharmshala. Vide order dated 8-5-1990 all the four respondents were ac quitted. 2. By virtue of the present appeal, the State has assailed the acquittal of the four respondents as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal was dismissed on 2-1-1998 by a Division Bench of this Court solely on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory directions contained in Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) Section 306, Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as no statement of the approver was recorded by him during the committal proceeding which vitiated the committal of the respondents to the Court of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2244
Surjit Singh, J.1. Through this common judgment, two appeals one filed by Satish Kumar, who has been convicted of offence, under Section 302, I.P.C. and another by Anil alias Neelu, who has been convicted of offence under Section 307, I.P.C. are being disposed of, because the appellants, in both the appeals, have been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences at one trial by the same judgment.2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals may be noticed. The two appellants along with one Ashwani, were sent up for trial for offences, punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. for allegedly committing the murder of one Gunny Mohammad and making murderous assault on one Rashid Mohammad. Prosecution version was as follows. P.W. 1 Suresh Kumar was employed as driver with M/s. Jagan Nath and Sons of Ghumarwin.On 21-10-2001, around 8 p.m. when he was returning to his house in village Takehra, after finishing his job for the day, Ashwani Kumar accused (who h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ShimLC412
Surjit Singh, J.1. The decision of this writ petition depends upon the answering of the following questions:1. Is it permissible to a department or an instrumentality of the State which invites tenders for any work/job to award the work/job by following some guidelines/rules/regulations assumed to be applicable to that department/instrumentality, which in fact are not, and to which there is no reference, even implicit, in the notice inviting tenders?2. Whether a provision in the Regulations for revision of the rates quoted in the tender by means of sealed or unsealed cover or in the form of an open letter placed in the tender box or if received by post deposited in the tender box by the Administrative Officer/Office Superintendent, is unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?2. First the relevant facts may be noticed. Chief Engineer, Project Deepak, Minto Court, Shimla, respondent No. 2 herein, invited tenders through notice for han...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1176
H.S. Thakur, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra Session Division, at Dharamsala has convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 307/34, 451/34, 398/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. and has sentenced them for the said offences. Aggrieved by the said order and judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, they have preferred this appeal to this Court.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the evening of 31st May, 1978 at about 7 or 7.30 P. M. Shri Lachhman Dass complainant (PW 3) and Anil Kumar (PW. 1) were sitting in their shop in village Chamrara, when the appellant Rup Kishore and another person who was standing at some distance, demanded a bundle of Biri and Anil Kumar handed over the same and received Us price. It is stated that at that time the sun was setting and there was sufficient light. Thereafter, Anil Kumar is stated to have gone to take his meal and the 4 accused persons headed by Rup Kishore appellant again came to the shop premises. At that ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ShimLC406
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This is the tenant's revision under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The respondent who is the landlady, preferred an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Act against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner who was the tenant in-one room in the building owned by the respondent-landlady at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- per month since August, 1994 is in arrears of rent and the premises occupied by the petitioner are required bona fide by the respondent for her own occupation. The land lord pleaded that she being the widow was being harassed by the petitioner who had withheld the payment of rent and further that she required the same for her personal bona fide requirement. The petition was resisted by the petitioner-respondent on a number of grounds. Four issues were framed by the Rent Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1985CriLJ860
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The only submission which was made for our consideration was that the previous sanction of the competent authority, as required by Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, having not been taken before the petitioner was tried and convicted by the General Court-Martial, the proceedings culminating into the conviction of the petitioner were void ab initio. There is no merit in this submission.2. The material part of the charge against the petitioner (Annexure PB) makes it clearthat he was put up for trial before the General Court-Martial for 'committing a civil offence, that is to say, criminal misconduct, contrary to Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947'. The charge, therefore, was that the petitioner had committed a 'civil offence' and the particulars of such civil offence were specified in the words next following. In the margin of the charge-sheet, Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1999CriLJ4705
M.R. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 3-2-1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur whereby the accused-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused) have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 353/34, 332/34 and 506/34, IPC.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19-5-1992 PW 1 Thakur Ram being the then P.T.I. in Government Middle School, Makri was taking the class of social work of VIII standard and another teacher PW 5 Balwant Singh was also present there for the same purpose, at that time, the accused entered into the school premises and inquired from PW Thakur Ram Chandel as to why he had beaten up their children. He denied the beatings to the children, whereupon the accused started giving him blows with fist, legs and dandas. They also threatened said Thakur Ram to do away with his life. On alarm having been raised by W Thakur Ram, PW 5 Balwant Singh went to the Head Master and thereafter PW 10 Ashok Kumar Shar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC472
Surinder Singh, J.1. In the instant petitions, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has raised a common question of law and facts hence taken up together for its decision.2. In brief the facts are; the petitioner herein, made a complaint to the Mining Department that the respondents were indulged in illegal mining by extracting the stones from his land and also from the Government land. On enquiry the Mining Officer found substance in the complaint, thus he being the authorized officer, filed three separate complaints against each of the accused-respondent, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, under Section 21(2) of the Mines & Mineral (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. The trial Court issued the summons, which were not served but the bailable warrants were served for their presence on 21.12.2002. The accused-respondents did not put in appearance on 21.12.2002. However, the trial Court passed the following order in all the compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC435
Surjit Singh, J.1. State is aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court whereby respondents Balvinder Kaur and Saravjit Singh and another person named Ravinder Singh, since deceased, have been acquitted of the charge of conspiracy to murder, murder and destruction of evidence of murder with a view to screening the offenders. So it has filed the present appeal.2. Facts, as they emerge from the prosecution evidence may be stated thus: Deceased Surjit Singh was employed as a Constable with Punjab Police. In the year 1987, his wife died. He was thereafter transferred to Mohali. He started living in the neighborhood of respondent Balvinder Kaur. Deceased and respondent Balvinder Kaur developed illicit relations. Deceased rented some accommodation at Dharampur in the building of Raj Kumar (PW 3) in July, 1990 and occupied the same on 5-9-1990. Respondent Balvinder Kaur accompanied him. A son of the deceased aged about, eight years, named Chhapinder Singh alias Soni (PW 14) was also with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1972CriLJ687
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The appellant, Gomtu, was charged under Sections 302, 201 and 436 I. P. C. The charge contained three heads. The first head is a charge for committing the murder of a man called Gover Singh, 'together with Bali and Dharam. Khubu, and Karmu during the night 31st December. 1968 and 1st January. 1969' although no reference to either Section 34 I. P. C. or a 'common intention' is made in the charge. The remaining two heads of charges, one under Section 201 and the other under Section 436 I. P. C., are also framed without invoking the aid of Section 34 I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge of Mandi acquitted Bali as well as the three sons of the appellant namely, Dharmu Khubu and Karmu because the evidence against them was found by him to be doubtful, but, convicted Gomtu appellant of an offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/-, and, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a furthe...
Tag this Judgment!