Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-07-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal not D-664-DB of 2008 Date of decision :07. 12.2012 Jasbir Singh ....Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH *** Present : Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms.Ritu Punj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** INDERJIT SINGH, J Appellant Jasbir Singh has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 11.08.2008 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC. FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Smt.Daljit Kaur wife of deceased. She stated to the police that house of Shingara Singh, elder brother of her h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-07-2012
Crl. Writ Petition No.1372 of 2012 (O&M) [ 1 ].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No.1372 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 7,2012 Sita ....................................................Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .............................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?.2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana..RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) This petition is being entertained on a telegram made by Smt. Sita wife of Shambhu Parshad that her husband has been taken by the police on 28.7.2012 and no case has been registered against him. On notice, reply has been filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. It has been stated that DDR No.22 dated 24.7.2012 was got lodged on a statement made by Gurpal Singh that his daughter Prabhdeep Kaur aged 22 years studying in M.A.Ist Crl. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-10-2012
Criminal Revision No.3926 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.3926 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 10 ,2012 Jiwan Kumar Anand ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner....Sabina, J. Petitioner had faced trial in FIR No.63 dated 2.5.1999 under Sections 420,120-B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short `IPC') along with other co-accused. Vide judgment/order dated 9.12.2010, Petitioner-Jiwan Kumar Anand, Varinder Kochar and Suresh Chander were convicted and sentenced qua the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The other co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Hem Lata, Poonam Prabhkar and Pardeep Kalia were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved against the order of his conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate Court, vide judgment dated 15.11.2011, dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-17-2012
CRA No.908-SB of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.908-SB of 2001 Date of Decision :17. 12.2012 Ashok Kumar .......Appellant Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Advocate, amicus curiae for the appellant. Mr.Rudraneel Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10/12.07.2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, (hereinafter as 'the trial Court').convicting the accused (herein appellant) for committing offence under Sections 307, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 307 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-20-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal not D-231-DB of 2009 Date of decision :20. 12.2012 Vijender @ Bunty ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH *** Present : Mr.Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant. Mr.R.K.S.Brar, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. *** INDERJIT SINGH, J Appellant Vijender @ Bunty has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 12.01.2009, passed by the Special Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula, vide which he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 302 IPC. However, remaining accused have been acquitted. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been register...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-16-2012
CWP No.22572 of 2012 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22572 of 2012 (O & M) Date of Decision: November 16, 2012 M/s Carol Info Services Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. K.L. Goyal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.This order shall dispose of four writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.22572, 22581, 22582 and 22599 of 2012 as identical issues are involved therein.2. In CWP No.22572 of 2012, a writ of certiorari has been sought for quashing the order dated 31st August, 2012 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Revisional Authority-respondent No.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order is against the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon and another versus East India Cotton Mfg....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-16-2012
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Appeal not D-197-DB of 2008 ..... Date of decision:16.11.2012 Daljit Singh alias Jit Singh alias Bhola and another ...Appellants v. State of Punjab ...Respondent .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh ..... Present: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the appellants. Mrs. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ...... Inderjit Singh, J.This appeal has been filed by appellants-Daljit Singh alias Jit Singh alias Bhola and Jagtar Singh sons of Ram Singh against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby they have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). Appellant-Daljit Singh has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-16-2012
CR No.4812 o1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4812 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 16, 2012 Suman Lata Pathak ...Petitioner Versus Raj Kamal Pathak ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1. Mr.KS Manrat, Advocate, for respondent No.5. A.N.JINDAL, J. (Oral) The order dated 23.4.2011, refusing the defendant's application for leading additional on the question of Will is under challenge. Heard. The arguments reveal that the defendant/petitioner Suman Lata Pathak had set up a Will dated 26.8.1976 allegedly executed by Ved Parkash Pathak, retired major from the Indian Army, in favour of Pushpa Pathak, who died on 11.9.2002 i.e.subsequent to the filing of the suit. The main controveRs.in the suit is with regard to the Will but no issue was framed in this regard. Had there been a specific issue regarding Will then the defendant coul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-19-2012
CRM not M-36244 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-36244 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:19. 11.2012 Poonam Anand wife of Inderjit Anand .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, Inderjit Anand (accused) husband of the petitioner, was having a joint account along with his son Navil Anand and brother Harish Kumar Anand, in Punjab National Bank, Barewal Road, Ludhiana. On 22.02.2012, he presented a fake account payee cheque, bearing not FAK-947271 dated 14.02.2012, for a sum of Rs.1,07,12,500/- in his joint account, purported to have been issued by M/s Nirmal Darbar, out of its current account. Accordingly, the said amount was credite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.671 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:19. 11.2012. Sukhwinder Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The petitioneRs.who are all ex-service men have filed the instant writ petition impugning the action of the respondent-authorities in holding them as ineligible for purposes of recruitment to the post of Male Constable in the Punjab District Police Cadre. A brief factual backdrop would be necessary. Petitioner no.1, whose date of birth is 3.5.1968 was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Indian Army on 23.9.1986. He was discharged from the Army on 31.3.2007 having served for a period of 20 years 6 months and 8 days. Petitioner no.2, whose date of birth is 12.6.1970 joined the...
Tag this Judgment!