Uttaranchal Court July 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dev Singh Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
B.C. Kandpal, J.1. This appeal preferred under Section 374 read with Section 389 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.1997 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 515 of 1995 State v. Dev Singh convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Brief facts of the case are that a telephonic message was received by the police of Tallital to the effect that the lady had certain burn injuries which were caused by her own husband Dev Singh resident of Stonelay Compound Tallital, Nainital. On receiving this information S.I. Kamal Ram Arya (PW4) rushed to the District Hospital, Mallital, Nainital and on way he found that the said lady was being taken to the hospital by her husband and the other residents of the locality. He also reached the hospital and had a talk with the said Deepa @ Deika. She told him that her husband Dev Singh poured kerosene oil on her body and set he...
Jagdish Singh Rautela @ Jaggi Vs. State
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
B.C. Kandpal, J.1. This criminal appeal, arises out against the judgment and order dated 17.9.1998, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 10/1992 State v. Jagdish Singh, convicting the accused/appellant Jagdish Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life Under Section 302 I.P.C. and five years R.I. Under Section 307 I.P.C. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the case, as emerged out from the record, are that Km. Kusum Mehta, aged about 13 years, daughter of informant Laxman Singh Mehta, was a student of class-10th in G.G.I.C. Champawat, in the year 1991. Accused Jagdish Singh used to tease her on way to school and house and used to tell impolite words. On 13.10.1991, when Km. Kusum Mehta was returning from school at about 4.00 p.m., Jagdish Singh again teased her on the way and used indecent words. Km. Kusum complained about it to her brother Ashok Mehta, who told her that he would ta...
State of Uttarakhand and anr. Vs. Ski and Snow Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The present special appeal has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the judgment dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 180 of 2008 (M/S) by which the learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Collector under Section 166 & 167 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the UPZA & LR Act).2. The facts leading to the filing of the Special Appeal is that Dr. Vijay Singh Pal and Arun Singh, belonging to the Scheduled Tribes community, sold plot Nos. 15, 16 and 17 measuring 15 naali and 12 muthi (0.315 hectares) by means of a sale deed dated 24.04.1996 to the writ petitioner M/s Ski & Snow Resorts Pvt. Ltd., which is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and which is engaged in tourism and hospitality business. Subsequent to the sale deed, the land was declared non-agriculture under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act, u...
Vipul and ors. Vs. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the same judgment and order dated 22.08.1996, passed by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions trial No. 82 of 1991, Sessions Trial No. 82-A of 1991, Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1991, Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1991, Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1991, Sessions Trial No. 80 of 1991, and Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1991, whereby accused/appellants, namely Vinay, Nikhil, Vipul, Sadhu and Mahesh have been convicted under Section 399, 402 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.), and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Each one of the convicts has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 399 of I.P.C., and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 402 of I.P.C., and directed to pay fine of Rs. 200/-. Each one of the convicts Vinay and Nikhil has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year und...
Maya Institute of Technology Vs. All India Council for Technical Educa ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
V.K. Bist, J.1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to respondent No. 1 to issue the letter of approval to the petitioner regarding Engineering Course.2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner applied for establishing a new Engineering College in the name of Maya Institute of Technology and also for including respondent No. 1 as Management of the College. The application of the petitioner was registered as 1-8228763. Thereafter, process of granting approval started. After the scrutiny, deficiency was found in the approved site plan of the petitioner and he was directed to remove deficiency. On 05.05.2010 petitioner wrote a letter to respondent No. 4-The Regional Director (Northern Region) AICTE, Government Polytechnic Campus, Vikasnagar, Kanpur (for short Regional Director) informing him about the rectification of the deficiencies. On 06.06.2010 petitioner appeared before respondent No. 4 and the Committee No. C-13 asked the petitioner about the ...
State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand). Vs. Jai Bhagwan, and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
1) This appeal, preferred under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th of May 1998, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No. 185 of 1997, whereby said court has acquitted the respondents Jai Bhagwan and Chatur Narain, of the charge of offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.).2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that respondent No. 1 Jai Bhagwan was Cashier, since 1972, with Municipal Board, Haridwar. Respondent No. 2 Chatur Narain was Asstt. Cashier with him. One Ramakant (P.W. 3) was the Misc. Demand Clerk in the establishment. In November 1983, from the report of the Accountant, it was revealed that on comparison of recovery shown in Demand Register with the Cashbook, it was found that an amount of Rs. 31,652.65, which was collect...
Ganesh Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
1. By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the charge sheet filed by S.H.O. P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun against the petitioners and further prayed for setting aside the summoning order passed by C.J.M. Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 591/2005, State v. Ganesh Joshi and 18 others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 34, 326, 325, 353, 332, 336, 307 I.P.C. and Section 2/3 P.P.D. Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against certain persons belonging to a particular political party on 13.12.2002 at 7.45 P.M. at P.S. Dalanwala, U/Ss 147, 148, 353, 332, 336, 326, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, as well as Section 2/3 of P.P.D. Act, stating therein that on 13.12.2002 at about 1 p.m. there was an ultimatum given by the B.J.P. Political Party to the government for "Gherao of the Vidhan Sabha" and on account of the same thousands of men and women assembled at Bannu School, Race Course, Dehradun and ...
State of U.P. (Now Uttarakhand ). Vs. Haridas Rai and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
1. Questioning the acquittal of the respondents by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Nainital vide order dated 16.05.1998 in Sessions Trial No. 319 of 1993, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.), this State appeal has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand as well as criminal revision is filed by complainant-Kripa Sindhu Vishwas. It would be worth mentioning that during the pendency of the appeal one of the appellants namely, Haridas Rai has expired, therefore, appeal against him stands abated.2. The facts, as highlighted by the prosecution version, are that complainant Kripa Sindhu Vishwas (PW-1) and accused Haridas Rai and his brothers were having dispute with regard to the title of five bighas of land for many years. Litigation was pending in the courts at Khatima and those cases were pursued on behalf of the accused by accused Ravindra Nath Sarkar. It has been further stated that civil litigation had been decided in favour of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›