Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(3)ShimLC370
..... , shops or persons available near the place of recovery. he denied his knowledge in case there is small house above the place where the accused was arrested or 3-4 nepalis reside near the residence of the accused. pw-1 hhc hem raj has clearly stated that he was sent in search of local and independent witnesses, but he could not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)ShimLC265
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the Judgment Debtors against the order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the learned executing Court in an application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been filed in the review petition preferred by the petitioner herein.2. The application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the Judgment Debtors Arvind Kohli and Amit Kohli (petitioners herein) praying that correction be made in the judgment and decree passed in favour of the Decree Holder. The learned Court holds that not only is the application vague, but the application for amendment of the decree does not show as to what the applicants-Judgment Debtors want. The first two paragraphs of the judgment hold:This order disposes of an application under Sections 151, 152 C.P.C. The pleadings as contained in paras 1 to 5 and also in the prayer clause are vague. The prayer clause is reproduced below:It is, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2009)IIILLJ719HP,2009(1)ShimLC291
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 27.2.1996. He was directed to file reply to the charge-sheet within a period of 15 days. He made a representation to the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority) on 21.3.1996 brining to his notice that the criminal case on the same facts was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi in a case titled as State v. G.R. Bhatia and the present proceedings be deferred. The request made by the petitioner was turned down and he was granted 20 days further time to file the reply to the charge-sheet. He again brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority that till the pendency of the criminal case pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi the disciplinary proceedings be deferred vide communication dated 27.6.1996. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Sh. P.S. Saluja, Senior Manager as Inqui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are Tibetans who are residing at Dharamsala. The plaintiff has filed this suit on the allegations that defendant No. 1 who was a Member of the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission deliberately and with malicious intent undertook a course of conduct to malign the reputation of the plaintiff. According to the pleadings, the plaintiff pleads2. Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. that the acts constituting defamation attributable to defendant No. 1 are that he was proclaiming:(i) The plaintiff is not a loyal and a conscientious Tibetan citizen;(ii) The plaintiff stands ostracized from the Tibetan society as he no longer can vote or hold any elected office in the Tibetan society;(iii) The plaintiff is a convict and has been convicted by the Justice Commission whereas this is not the case and(iv) The plaintiff has been misdirecting and also willfully flouting the Rules under which a scholarship was awar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC203
..... patrolling duty alongwith other police officials in banjar area. at about 2.30 p.m. when the police party reached one k.m. from sidhwan, they noted the appellant, a nepali, carrying a polythene bag in his hand, who on seeing the police party travelling in the vehicle threw the bag on the road which he was carrying and started running ..... requirement of law to associate the independent witnesses in a case of chance recovery. the police has no malice or ill-will against the appellant. he happens to be a nepali and was found alone alongwith polythene packet which was thrown by him on seeing the police on the spot itself shows that he had the knowledge as to what he .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. The husband of the petitioner Sh. Inder Singh was appointed as a Driver in the respondent-corporation on 8.12.1987. A notice was issued to Sh. Inder Singh on 11.2.1999 whereby the appointing authority had come to a conclusion that he was not a fit person to be retained in the service of the corporation and penalty of removal was proposed. He was granted 15 days time to submit his representation. He filed reply/representation on 5.3.1999. He was removed from the service of the respondent- corporation vide office order dated 25.4.2000. He preferred an appeal against the same on 29.7.2000 and as per the averments contained in the petition it was rejected on 9.4.2001. 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate has strenuously argued that late husband of the petitioner Sh. Inder Singh could not be removed without holding regular inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. She also contended that Sh. Inder Singh was permanent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Ahuja, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of four appeals arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Una, dated 19.2.2004. Cr.Appeal No. 299 of 2004 has been filed by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence awarded to accused Ravinder Singh and Balwinder Singh by the learned trial Court. Cr.A. No. 477 of 2004 has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of accused/respondent Naresh Kumar Kaushal of the offence punishable under Section 212 of the IPC. Cr.Appeals No. 322 of 2004 and 323 of 2004 have been preferred by the appellants Ravinder Singh and Balwinder Singh, respectively, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned trial Court, vide which both of them were convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 366 read with Rigorous imprisonment for 10Section 34 of the IPC: years and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC411
..... 1994 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under section 376 ipc.2. the prosecution story in brief is that one bimla devi, who is a nepali, was residing in a hut at ghera near gaj project site alongwith her husband man bahadur. they had three children. one daughter, lovely aged about 5 years, younger daughter (name .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)ShimLC474
Surjit Singh, J.1. Appellant Raj Kumar is aggrieved by the judgment, dated 29th November, 2005, of the Sessions Court, whereby he has been convicted of offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. So, he has preferred this appeal.2. Case of the prosecution may be summed up thus. On the night intervening 15th and 16th October, 2003, around 2.20 p.m., a telephonic call was received at Police Station, Talai, District Bilaspur. The caller did not disclose his particulars, but informed that Raj Kumar son of Budhi Singh, resident of Kalol, had been stabbed, with a knife, in the bazaar of village Kalol and he was lying unconscious and the police should reach and take appropriate action. The call was attended by PW-16 ASI Ram Nath. Entry was made in the Rojnamcha, copy of which is Ex. PW-15/A. Upon that a po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present eight appeals, whose particulars are given in the heading of this judgment, are being disposed of by a common judgment, as all of them are directed against two judgments delivered in the same Sessions Trial and evidence, upon which the judgments are based, is the same. The judgments are dated 20th January, 2005 and 22nd September, 2007, delivered by Sessions Court at Una. As a matter of fact, there could have been a single judgment, but the necessity for writing a second judgment arose, because one of the appellants (convicts), namely Gurjant Singh, after the close of the evidence by the prosecution and even after his own examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, absconded and he had to be declared a proclaimed offender, on account of his being not traceable. A separate judgment was written in his (Gurjant Singh's) case on 22nd September, 2007.2. We may notice the prosecution case, which led to the trial. Una Police filed a report,...
Tag this Judgment!