Sikkim Court March 2014 Judgments
Sikkim Social Empowerment Association Vs. Anjan Upadhyaya, Editor and ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Wangdi, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Sub-Section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the œCr.P.C.) assailing the impugned judgment dated 20-06-2013 of the Sessions Judge, Special Division “ I, Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2011 which had set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) against the Respondent No.1 in Private Complaint Case No.19 of 2008 for offence under Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the œIPC?) on a complaint lodged by the Appellant. 2. In the original complaint, it had been alleged that the Respondent No.1 who is the Editor and Publisher Sikkim Social Empowerment Association vs. Shri Anjan Upadhyaya and Another of local dailies, namely, Hamro Prajashakti in Nepali and Himalayan Mirror in English had indulged in publishing various o...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Pradhan Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Wangdi, J. 1. The Appellant in this Appeal seeks to assail the judgment dated 31-08-2013 passed by the Learned Fast Track Court, South Sikkim at Namchi in Sessions Trial (Fast Track) Case No.27 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment) by which he was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) in default of payment of which he was directed to undergo further imprisonment of 2 month by duly remitting the period of imprisonment already undergone by him against the sentence. 2(i). The facts of the case to state briefly is that on 01-04-2012 at about 1100 hours one Sarmila Chhettri, the Complainant, had appeared at the Melli Police Station, South Sikkim accompanied by her grandmother, Smt. Dil Maya Chhetri, P.W.1, and reported verbally that in August, 2011, she, accompanied by Tika Chettri, P.W.2, had gone to Turuk Public Health Sub-Centre (in short &oeli...
Tag this Judgment!Man Bahadur Darjee Vs. Manoj Gupta and Others
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Wangdi, J. 1. This Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 07-05-2013 of the Learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South and West Sikkim at Namchi (in short œLearned Claims Tribunal?) in M.A.C.T. Case No.32 of 2011 by which the claim for death compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the Appellant, was rejected. 2. The Appellant is the brother of the deceased and the Respondents No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs and representatives of Ram Singhasan Prasad, the owner of the truck bearing registration No.SK-03/1208, that met with the fatal accident. 3. There is no dispute of the fact that the deceased was employed as a handy boy inthe truck bearing registration No.SK-03/1208 that met with an accident while travelling from Soreng, West Sikkim to Jorethang, Man Bahadur Darjee vs. Manoj Gupta and Others South Sikkim on 07-12-2010. It is also not disputed that the deceased had died in that accident. 4. From the records of the Learned Cl...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Bir Man Rai a ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Jain, CJ (Oral). 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988) against the judgment/award dated 25.07.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok (for short the Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 43 of 2008, whereby the learned Member of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,62,500/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, towards compensation in favour of claimants/respondents in respect of death of late Dhan Raj Rai, who died in a motor accident, which took place on 26.12.2006. 3. There is a delay of 669 days in filing the appeal, therefore, the appellant has filed an application i.e. CMA No. 205/2013, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for respondents has filed a written objection/ reply to the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 4. While arguing the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›