Court : Uttaranchal
Dharam Veer, J.1. Both the above-said criminal appeals have been arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 4.4.1997 and the incident in both the appeals is one and the same as well as the evidence is also common in the said trial, hence both of them are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Both the criminal appeals, preferred under Section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), are directed against the common judgment and order dated 4.4.1997 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 389 of 1993, State v. Dilla & Suresh Kumar, whereby the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted each of the appellants/accused Dilla and Suresh Under Section 376 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced each of them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further one months' R.I. each.3. I have he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2004, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Misc Criminal Case No. 39 of 2003, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife (respondent No. 1), and Rs. 500/- per month to his minor daughter (respondent No. 2).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Hema Choudary and respondent No. 2 Km. Shakshi filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) against the present revisionist, claiming Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to be paid to respondent No. 1, and Rs. 1,500/- per month to be paid to the respondent No. 2. It is pleaded by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in their application before the trial court that respondent No. 1 Hema Choudary got married...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. By an order dated 2 5.08.2006, respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension. Respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 306 of 2006 to assail the order of suspension. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition on 13.10.2006 with a direction to the Managing Director of the Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam, Dehradun to take a final decision on the claim of respondent No. 1 for revoking his suspension. Rather than examining the claim made by respondent No. 1, as against his order of suspension, the inquiry initiated against respondent No. 1 was completed (with the submission of an enquiry report dated 13.11.2006), whereupon respondent No. 1 was reverted to the substantive post of Assistant Engineer. Respondent No. 1 assailed the order of his reversion before the appellate authority. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed on 7.8.2007. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the appellate authority, respondent No. 1 preferred Claim Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
1. The appellants approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (SS) No. 95 of 2009 so as to claim eligibility for appointment against the post of L.T. Grade Teacher in Physical Education by way of direct recruitment. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that 70 posts of L.T. Grade Teacher in Physical Education were advertised on 17.6.2002 for Kumaon Mandal. Subsequently, 25 more posts for L.T. Grade Teacher in Physical Education were advertised on 20.10.2004 again for the Kumaon Mandal. Thereafter, 46 further posts of L.T. Grade Teacher for Physical Education were advertised on 4.11.2009 for Garhwal Mandal. The appellants had responded to the aforesaid advertisements, but their candidatures were not being considered. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the appellants had approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition seeking consideration in the selection process.2. It is not a matter of dispute that the advertisements, referred to in the foregoing parag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
ORDERSri Brij Mohan Pant S/o Sri Govind Ballabh Pant temporary incumbent of UP Govt. Roadways, Tanakpur Region working in on the pensionable post of Asstt. Cashier in the scale of pay Rs. 100-4- 120-88-5-170-88-6-180 w.e.f. 1.4.1972 against the permanent post sanctioned by the Govt. G.C. No. 100-XXX-2-608 N/72 dated 5.2. 1973.Regional Manager,UP State Road Transport Corporation, Pithoragarh.2. At this juncture, it would also be necessary to notice, that consequent upon the creation of the UP State Road Transport Corporation, Brij Mohan Pant was absorbed by the UP State Road Transport Corporation.3. A perusal of the Office Order dated 28.02.1984 (extracted herein above) leaves no room for any doubt, that Brij Mohan Pant was working against a pensionable post. The afore-stated Brij Mohan Pant, however, died on 27.12.1999 in harness. After his death, his widow Sushila Pant claimed all monetary benefits due to her husband, including family pension payable to her on account of the services ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Risak alias Munna through jail challenging the order-dated 17.11.2003 by which the appellant Risak @ Munna (hereinafter to be referred as Munna) and accused Anwar have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2001, under Sections 376(g) and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each of the offences punishable under Sections 376(g) and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of case as per the prosecution, are that Rakesh Kumar, father of five years old girl Rakhi, submitted an application (Ext. Ka-4) before the Chowki In-charge, Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun stating that on 26.09.2000 at about 8:00 p.m. accused Munna and Anwar had taken away his daughter Rakhi from his house on the pretext that they will get her some snacks (Namkeen) from the shop. Accused Anwar was living in front of the house of Rakesh while ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Dharam Veer, J.1. This criminal appeal, preferred by the appellant Under Section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1993 State v. Raju @ Rajendra Prasad whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 363 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as the IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months further rigorous imprisonment was awarded. He was further convicted Under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to seven years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one year's further imprisonment was awarded. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. The accused-appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.01.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 501 of 1995 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 363 read with Section 366 of the I.P.C. and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 376 of the I.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The criminal law was set in motion on a complaint Ex. Ka-1 submitted by Ram Chandra Joshi, father of a minor girl (hereinafter referred to as victim) on 03.04.1995. [Name of the victim has not been mentioned to prevent social victimization or ostracism of the victim of the sexual offence for which Section 228-A of the I.P.C. has been enacted. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The petitioner claims to have been inducted into the service of the Forest Department as Forest Range Officer in 1968. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Forest Range Officer after his selection by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. On account of his satisfactory work and conduct, the petitioner was confirmed against the post of Forest Range Officer vide order dated 1.7.1974.2. Onwards promotion from the post of Forest Range Officer is to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. The claim of the petitioner was considered in 1978 and he was promoted as such on an adhoc basis by an order dated 23.8.1978. The desire of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an order directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest with effect from 1.7.1976 i.e. as per the date of his eligibility and also on account of the fact that a clear vacancy was available to promote the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Nirmal Yadav, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 03.11.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1997 whereby appellant-Trilok Singh has been convicted under Section 304 part II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years.2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are, that on 04.11.1996 at about 1:00 p.m. Trilok singh had altercation with his stepbrother Prem Singh and during the course of altercation Trilok Singh assaulted Prem Singh with a lathi on his head. On receipt of the lathi injury Prem Singh fell down and did not regain consciousness till 05.11.1996. Smt. Anuli Devi wife of Prem Singh (deceased) and others were in the process of shifting him to District Hospital but in the meantime Prem Singh expired on the next day i.e. 05.11.1996 at 6:00 p.m. Smt. Anuli Devi had informed about the incident to Nain Singh. After the death of her husband she asked Mohan Singh (PW-2) to repo...
Tag this Judgment!