Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2999
N. Surjamani Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 28-3-2005 and order of sentence dated 31-3-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Special Division-II) Sikkim at Gangtok in Sessions trial case No. 3 of 2004 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and also to pay fine of Rs. l,000/-.2. The prosecution story which lies in a short compass brings to light a sad and shocking incident of a son (accused/appellant) beheading his own father with a sharp Khukurl in a altercation over the disruption of a drinking water pipeline in a small village called Lower Syari in East Sikkim. The prosecution versions as unfolded during the trial of the case are as follows:The deceased Mangal Singh Tamang aged about 59 years who was a widower used to live with his only son Pema Tamang, the accused/appellant herein in Lower Syari Busty, East Sikkim. One Miss Mysang Tamang aged about 64 years an un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2751
ORDERA.P. Subba, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition, is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-9-2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, West at Gyalshing, in Criminal Case No. 3 of 2003, as well as the judgment and Order dated 26-12-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (South & West) at Namchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2003.2. The case of the petitioner is that, on a written complaint dated 19-3-2002 lodged by him, the respondents Nos. 2 to 10 herein, were prosecuted for offences under Sections 147/149/325/342 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, West at Gyalshing. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted three of the nine accused persons namely, Bishnu Kumar Rai (Respondent No. 2), Raj Kumar Katwal (Respondent No. 3) and Chandralall Karki (Respondent No. 4) under Section 325, IPC, sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, and acquit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2006Sik25
A.P. Subba, J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19th November, 2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-II, Sikkim in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2003, who had dismissed the suit by reversing decree dated 29th November, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, East, in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2001 filed by the Appellants. Thus, the Plaintiffs who had filed the Civil Suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, East at Gangtok, and had obtained a decree in their favour, are now the Appellants in the present Second Appeal.2. The following is the backdrop of the case between the parties:One Shri Gopalji Prasad, who is the common male ancestor of the parties, being the father of the Respondents and grandfather of the Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and great grand-father of the Appellant No. 4, owned movable and immovable properties in Sikkim, as well as outside. The properties so owned by him, were partitioned with his five sons in the year 1987, vide, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2007Sik7
A.P. Subba, J.1. By filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner Shri Nima Ongdi Lepcha, a loanee of the State Bank of Sikkim (Respondent No. 2), has prayed for quashing the impugned Certificate of Public Demand dated 13-9-2004 issued by the Certificate Officer, East District for recovery of O.D. loan of Rs. 5,62,365.17 from him.2. Before proceeding with the narration of the respective cases of the parties, it is convenient to bear in mind, that the law relating to recovery of public demands in erstwhile Sikkim was not comprehensive. The relevant law as contained in Notification No. 405 of 1950 was sketchy and inadequate. It mainly lacked provision for giving due opportunity to the debtor for making representations against the realisations of public demands. Hence, with a view to make a comprehensive law with detailed provisions on the subject, the State Legislature enacted a law called the Sikkim Public Demands Recovery Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1 of 1988). This Act recei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2006Sik19
Binod Kumar Roy, C.J.1. This common order disposes the question of maintainability of this First Appeal as well as this Civil Revision.2. The facts relevant for disposal of the question of maintainability are in an extremely narrow compass.2.1 The Eviction Suit in question was filed by the respondent (plaintiff/landlord) for eviction of the appellant (defendant/tenant). The suit, after contest, was decreed by judgment and decree dated 16th October, 2004.2.2 The defendant/tenant filed an application on 29th November, 2004 seeking review of the aforementioned judgment along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 14 days. The application seeking condonation of delay, after contest on merit by the appellant, was allowed vide Order dated 10th August, 2005. However, the petition seeking review, after contest, was dismissed vide Order dated 5th October, 2005.2.3 The First Appeal is against the judgment and decree aforementioned. Civil Revision has been filed against the Order rej...
Tag this Judgment!