Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-09-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Criminal Appeal not D-658-DB of 2007 Date of decision :09. 11.2012 Balwant ....APPELLANT VERSUS State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH *** Present : Ms.Aditi Girdhar, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant. Mr.R.K.S.Brar, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. *** INDERJIT SINGH, J Appellant Balwant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 15.06.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 376 IPC. However, he has been acquitted under Section 506 IPC Brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused Balwant, who is father of the prosecutrix has committed rape upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jun-01-2012
RANJIT SINGH, J. Serious concern shown by the Courts and strict measures to check custodial death or use of criminal force during investigation/interrogation, has not deterred the police force to mend its way and go in for scientific investigation of a crime. Use of violence by police sometime leading to death has apparently gone unabated, despite concerns having been expressed by various Courts in this regard from time to time. The facts in the present case are indicative of a custodial death, though police has made elaborate and detailed efforts to give it a colour of crime on the part of the deceased boy, who has lost his life at the young age of about 17 years. The case of alleged custodial death has apparently come to the notice of this Court on the basis of telegram initiated by Wali Ahmed, a resident of Gurgaon, alleging that his minor son, named Ali Mohammad, was picked up by the police on 26.1.2012 at about 3 P.M. from Khandsa road. The telegram initiated on 3.2.2012 and recei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-12-2012
MehinderSingh Sullar, J. Oral: 1. As identical points of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated three petitions for quashing the similar impugned orders (Annexure P10), by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts extracted from (1) CRM No.M-5449 of 2011 titled as “Mainpal @ Dhilla Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.” would be mentioned in subsequent part of this judgment for ready reference in this context. 2. The challenge in these petitions, is to the impugned order dated 31.1.2011 (Annexure P10), vide which, the application (Annexure P9) filed by the petitioners-accused for re-examining/re-summoning the witness under Section 311 Cr.PC was dismissed by the trial Court. 3. The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and oozing out, from the record, is that six criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-05-2012
This appeal has been filed by the appellants Gajender Parkash son of Kailash Chander and Kailash Chander son of Mukhtiar Singh appellants No.1 and 2 respectively against the judgment dated 13.7.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” - for short) and Kailash Chander (appellant No.2) has also been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the order of sentence dated 14.7.2004 whereby the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, besides, pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence under Section 302 IPC and undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, besides, pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence under Section 307 IPC; besides, Kailash Chander (appellant No.2) has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-01-2012
Sabina, J. Vide this judgment, the above mentioned Criminal Appeal No. 854-DB of 2005 and Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2006 shall be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same judgment/incident. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the statement of the complainant Kuldip Singh. The complainant stated in his statement before Assistant Sub Inspector Vinod Kumar dated 30.4.2002 that at about 1.00 A.M. on the said date, he had reached his fields along with his brother Jagsir Singh and maternal uncle Shamsher Singh for taking turn of water. When he tried to divert the flow of water along with his brother Jagsir Singh, then Balwant Singh armed with .12 bore gun and his sons Jagtar Singh armed with saila and Iqbal Singh armed with dang came there raising lalkaras and tried to stop Jagsir Singh from taking turn of water. The moment Jagsir Singh tried to divert the water, Balwant Singh fired a shot at him from his 12 bore gun which hit him on the left side of his chest. Jagsi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-23-2012
HEMANT GUPTA, J. Appellant Prince Kumar son of Ravinder Kumar has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years respectively, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, by judgment and order dated 17.03.2006. The appellant has further been directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under each head. In default, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence with the filing of Criminal Appeal No.337-DB of 2006, while the complainant Ganesh Chander son of Bhajan Lal, cousin of the deceased, has filed Criminal Revision No.1871 of 2006 seeking setting aside of judgment and order dated 17.03.2006. Both the cases have been taken up for decision together by this common order. The prosecution case was set in motion on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-23-2012
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.- This revision petition is directed against the orders of both the Courts below by which the present petitioner has been ordered to vacate the demised premises (shop) which forms part of property No. 4-G, Municipal No. B-XX.4010, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. 2. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent @ Rs. 900/- per month besides house tax w.e.f. 01.09.1997. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 27.04.2004, assessed the provisional rent which was ordered to be paid on 22.05.2004. The order dated 27.04.2004 was challenged by the tenant by way of CR-2490-2004 in which interim order was passed on 14.05.2004 giving liberty to the tenant to tender the rent w.e.f. March, 2001 upto 30th April, 2003 @ Rs. 900/- per month. The tenant accordingly tendered the rent of that period amounting to Rs. 29,070/-. During the pendency of CR-2490- 2004, the landlord filed an application on 27.07.2004 for passing the order of eviction against the ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-03-2012
K. Kannan, J. 1. The lis 1. The writ petition is at the instance of an educationed institution challenging the continuance of the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. It is significant to observe even at the outset that the proceedings before the Estate Officer has not been concluded and the writ petition has been filed when the proceedings were in progress and when the case was posted for hearing to a particular date for further evidence. II. The litigious journey so far (a) Petitioner’s possession of the land of NTPC for running a school 2. The facts leading up to the litigation would require to be quickly visited. An agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent in respect of property measuring just under 7 acres of land on 26.06.2000. The agreement allows for the petitioner to establish a school conforming to CBSE pattern and allows for construction to be put up at the cost of the petitioner....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-03-2012
L.N. Mittal, J.(Oral) - Plaintiff Satnarain @ Satya Narain has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi. 2. During the course of trial of the suit, evidence of defendant No. 1 was closed by trial Court's order dated 25.02.2009. Evidence of defendants No. 2 to 6 was closed by trial Court's order dated 10.06.2009. The case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of plaintiff, if any and for arguments. 3. On 27.01.2010, while the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff and for final arguments, defendant No. 1 appeared in the Court and informed the Court that he was bed ridden at the time of evidence of the defendants and could not come in the Court. He expressed his desire to make his statement as witness. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 allowed the said prayer of defendant No. 1 by invoking Section 151 of the Code of Civi...
Tag this Judgment!