Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:17.9.2013 + CRL.A. 1367/2011 MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Sanjay Suri, Rishabh Relan and Mr. Dinesh Malik, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J (oral) 1 On the intervening night of 28-29.06.2007 at about midnight in a gali opposite Raj STD, Dhirpur village, Delhi the four appellants before this Court namely Manoj, Mahender, Ravinder (presently lodged in judicial custody) and Ritu (since released on bail) in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of deceased Manish @ Guddu. Version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of the eye-witness Rakhi (PW-11). The role attributed to appellant Manoj was that he had caused stab injuries to the deceased while he was caught hold of by Mahender and Ravinder; Rakhi had exhorted the co-accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:10.09.2013 Judgment delivered on:17.09.2013 CRL.A. 1064/2010 MOHD. ISLAM .... Appellant Through Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. versus STATE Through + ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State CRL.A. 414/2011 CHANDER SINGH Through .... Appellant Mr. S.K. Pandey, Adv. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 There are two appellants before this Court. Both of them are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 26.03.2010 and 29.03.2010 vide which they have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302,201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of three months each for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC; for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:16.9.2013 + CRL.A. 1154/2010 DEVENDER @ D K ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Anita Abraham, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J (oral) 1 On 02.4.2006, DD No.54B (Ex.PW-3/A) was recorded in the local police station P.S. Shalimar Bagh which was to the effect that at 6.37 PM on the same day at Kela Gown, Railway Colony one unknown person had received injuries who had been removed to the hospital by the PCR. 2 H.C.Mohd. Aftab (PW-17) posted in the PCR North-West Zone, Model Town had removed the injured (Sachin) to the BJRM from the aforenoted place of incident and had informed the local police pursuant to which Ex.PW-3/A had been registered. 3 Investigation was entrusted to ASI Kartar Singh (PW-10) who along with Constable Satender (PW-2) reached the spot. On reaching the spot they learnt tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16. h September, 2013 + CRL.L.P. 501/2013 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for the State. versus LALITA ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL J.(ORAL) CRL.M.A. 13958/2013 (delay) 1. This application has been filed by the State seeking condonation of 94 days delay in filing the present petition for leave to appeal.2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, present application is allowed. Delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned.3. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 501/2013 4. By this petition under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), (North-West) Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No.12/2009 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-04-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:4. 09.2013 + CRL.A. No.432 /2010 NARESH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Ms.AshaTiwari, Advocate versus STATE Through: + CRL.A. No. 321/2010 ARUN KUMAR @ HANNI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State AND + CRL.A. No. 717/2010 SANJIV @ SANJAY @ MANJAN ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR CRL.A. Nos.432 /321/717 of 2010 Page 1 JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. By this order we propose to decide three separate Criminal Appeals preferred by Naresh Kumar, Arun Kumar and Sanjeev, accused in FIR No. 965/07 to challenge the judgment dated 11.02.2009 and or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-03-2013
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on:03. 09.2013 + RC. Rev. No.247/2013 & C.M. No.10716/2013 (for stay) THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED (M/S MARKFED) ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Brijender Chahar, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vineet Bhagat & Mr.Akash Tyagi, Advs. along with Mr.Shiv Kumar, Senior Manager (Law) in person. versus AMIT GOEL & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. and Mr.Ravi Gupta, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Lalit Gupta, Ms.Payal Gupta & Mr.Ashish Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13th May, 2013 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (04), South, New Delhi in an eviction petition filed by the respondents (petitioners therein) in respect of House no. C-212 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024 (hereinafter ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:26. 8.2013 Judgment delivered on:30.8.2013 + CRL.A. 724/2009 RAKESH @ COMMANDO Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Pramod Kumar Dubey, Mr.Siddhartha Das, Mr.Nitin Saluja, Mr.Shiv Pande, Mr.Shiv Chopra and Mr.Amit Singh Rathor, Advocates. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Sunil Sharma, APP for the State. Inspector Kuldeep Singh, SHO, Defence Colony. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 18.7.2009 and 31.7.2009 vide which he had been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months. 2 Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 25.7.2007 Kamal Kishore (PW-9) was celebrating his birthday at his residence A-25, Sadiq Nagar. He had invited h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-30-2013
$~01. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.APPEAL NO.1100/2010 Judgment reserved on 5th July , 2013 Judgment delivered on 30th August, 2013 % RAHUL KUMAR RAMAN BHAI CHOUDHARY ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Vijay Kumar and Mr.Rajiv Kumar, Advs. Versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Richa Kapoor, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL G.S.SISTANI, J 1.Challenge in this appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is to the judgment dated 27.3.2009 and the order on sentence dated 27.3.2009 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959. The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :9th May, 2013 Judgment delivered on:22. d August,2013 % + CRL.M.C. No. 1604/2007 & Crl. M.A. No. 5582/2007 (for stay) POONAM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia and Mr.Chetanya Puri, Advocates with Petitioner in person. Versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: SHO Rajender Gautam, P.S. Alipur for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.K.Malik, Mr. Rahul Raj Malik and Mr. Rajeev Chauhan, Advocates. AND + CRL.M.C. No. 2751/2007 & Crl. M.A. No. 9723/07 (for stay) NARENDER SINGH SALKAN Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Malavika Rajkotia and Mr.Chetanya Puri, Advocates with Petitioner in person. Versus STATE & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents SHO Rajender Gautam, P.S. Alipur for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.K.Malik, Mr. Rahul Raj Malik and Mr. Rajeev Chauhan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.Crl. M.A. Nos. 18903 & 18904/2011 (both for adjournment) in CRL.M.C. Nos. 1604 & 2751 of 2007 Dismissed as infr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-14-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:14. 08.2013 LPA 178/2013 NEPAL SINGH ..... Appellant versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Atul T.N. For the Respondent : Mr Manish Garg CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1.The present appeal impugns the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by a Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8046/2010. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and has quashed the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the Labour Court holding that the inquiry conducted by the respondent in respect of the charge levelled against the appellant was not fair and proper.2. The Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the findings urged by the Inquiry Officer were not based on acceptable evidence. This conclusion was arrived at by the Labour Court on the premise that the witne...
Tag this Judgment!