Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-20-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3426
..... often used to come to section 18-a, chandigarh. thus witness knew the accused previously. no doubt, both suresh kumar and sewak ram had stated that they could identify the nepali boy if he comes across them. while stating the version as has come in the statement of sitla parshad they had not specifically named the petitioner-accused. admittedly, during the ..... been falsely named in this case on suspicion for the crime mainly on the ground that he was one of the nepali boys who were playing volley ball in the ground near veerka dairy in sector 18-a, chandigarh where other nepali boys were also playing with him. though prosecution had cited three eye-witnesses, namely, sitla parshad, suresh kumar and ram .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-21-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3368
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was a member of the Indian Police Service. He is now a Member of Parliament. He questions the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.2. What is the petitioner's case? He alleges that 'its draconian provisions infringe the basic rights of people of India i.e. right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution....' Under Section 3(5), a 'person who is a member of a terrorist organization...can be arrested and punished...with life imprisonment and a fine up to Rs. ten lacs.' Section 49(5) of the Act provides that the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C. are not available for those 'to whom the Act applies.' Section 49(7) denies bail to person arrested under the provisions of the Act unless 'the Special Judge comes to the conclusion that the accused has not committed the crime...;.' The 'benevolent provisions of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. that a person can be granted bail if a challan is not presented within 6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-09-2002
Reported in : (2003)133PLR227
Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The landlord has filed the present revision petition to challenge the orders whereby his ejectment petition was dismissed by both the Courts below.2. The petitioner is owner of residential building situated at Ashram Road, Charkhi Dadri. A portion marked by letter CPU was let out to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 160/- per month. However, the rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 200/- per month. The landlord has been residing in the fist floor in the portion shown by letter EFGH in the site plan. The petitioner-landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the ground floor on the ground that he requires the premises for his bona fide necessity. He also stated that the double storey house has been partitioned between the petitioner and his elder son.3. The respondent contested the petition and contended that the petitioner has been letting out half portion of the first floor on rent to different persons and he does not require the premises for ...
Tag this Judgment!