Uttaranchal Court August 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.
Rajnish Kumar. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. These two petitions have arisen out of a common summoning order and the dispute to be decided in both of them is also same, hence both the petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order.2. Both these criminal applications, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), are directed for quashing the summoning order dated 3.5.2005 and to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.185 of 2005, State v. Yogesh Gupta & others U/s 406/420 IPC pending before J.M. CBI, Dehradun3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.4. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 was engaged in the work of Data Conversion in Computers in the name of Reward Computers from her own house. In August 2003 petitioner Retd. Col. Yogesh Gupta met her and induced to enter into a partnership with him so as to earn huge profits. On 25.8.2003 a deed of Partnership was prepared in which she also made ...
Lokesh Kumar S/O Charan Singh. Vs. State of Uttaranchal.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the applicant as well as Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State and also perused the record.2. Brief facts of the case are that Ved Prakash, Block Development Officer, Pauri lodged a report in the police station against the present applicant and the co-accused Virendra Singh Bisht on 10.3.2010 alleging that the applicant in collusion with co-accused misappropriated the government funds. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State while opposing the bail of the applicant strongly argued that the applicant, being posted as Accounts Clerk, in collusion with co-accused, misappropriated the government funds to the tune of Rs.12,44,721/- by preparing different cheques on different dates. He further submitted that the bail of the co-accused Virendra Singh Bisht has already been rejected by this Court on 3.6.2010. D...
Dan Singh S/O Late Sri Hari Singh, and anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal a ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 595 of 2004, Ishwar Singh v. Dan Singh and another, relating to offence punishable under Section 448 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun.2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one turned up on behalf of respondent No. 2, even after sufficient service.3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 / complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun, alleging that in March 1996, complainant (respondent No. 2) had gone out, when the petitioners broke open the lock of his house and occupied the same, forcibly. It is further alleged in the criminal complaint that a report was made to the police, and a notice was got served through an Advocate to the petitioners to handover ...
Sri Harish Chandra Suyal. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 714 of 2004, State v. Laxmi Dutt and another, relating to offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 409, 120B of I.P.C., police station Askot, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District Pithoragarh.2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.3) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Harish Chandra Suyal was posted as Village Development Officer in Block Kanalichina of District Pithoragarh. A first information report was lodged by Incharge Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Haldwani, against the petitioner and five other accused, relating to offences punishable under Section 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120- B of I.P.C., at police station Askot. It is mentioned in the first information report that on receiving a complaint relating to illegalities...
Mrs. Anita MandolA. Vs. Director of Women Welfare, and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Teacher. This Writ Petition by the petitioner has been filed by the petitioner effectively against the order dated 23.10.1999 terminating her services and subsequent order dated 12.1.2000 whereby her representation against the termination of her services was also rejected. The petitioner was initially appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 5.8.1996 by the Deputy Chief Probationary Officer, Garhwal Division, Pauri. The appointment order of the petitioner clearly states that her appointment is purely on adhoc basis and will come to an end once the duly selected candidate is appointed on that post. The case of the petitioner is that her services were not terminated vide order dated 23.10.1999 because the duly selected candidate had joined that post but on the ground that the Deputy Chief Probationary Officer i.e. respondent no. 2 had no power to appoint the petitioner. This order was initially challenged by the petitioner befo...
State of Uttaranchal. Vs. Sri Syeed Ahmad.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. The State of Uttarakhand has challenged the judgment dated 23.09.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide which appeal of accused Syeed Ahmad, filed against the judgment and order dated 13.01.1993 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun, has been accepted and accused Syeed Ahmad has been acquitted of the charges punishable under sections 472, 474, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as IPC) Facts, in brief, are that Harish Chandra Joshi, Inspector CBI was the Investigating Officer in Case No. RC/85-CBI, New Delhi with regard to the case relating to preparation of forged passport and visa documents. During the investigation, he received information that Shamshad Ali and Mohd. Ali alias Bata along with some other persons were involved in preparing forged passports and visa documents. On this information, he arrested Shamshad Ali and conducted search of Mohd. 2. Ali's house but nothing objectionable was found. However, Shamshad Ali informed...
Thakri S/O ChaIn Sukh. Vs. State of Uttaranchal.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 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 21.08.1998 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No.26 of 1997, State v. Thakri, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused u/s 307 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) for five years' R.I.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.3. In brief, the prosecution case is that complainant Jagdish (P.W.3) lodged an FIR on 22.9.1996 stating therein that on that day at about 7:30 PM, he along with his brother Lakhan was sitting in his grocery shop and electric light was there and at that time, the appellant-accused along with one person came being armed with country made pistols and fired upon Lakhan which hit on his mouth and stomach. On the noise raised by the complainant, several p...
K.K. Tripathi S/O B.P. Tripathi. Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.4.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun, in CBI Case No.6/87, CBI Versus K.K. Tripathi, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge convicted the appellant-accused under Section 161 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as the IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellant-accused was further convicted u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred as Act) and was sentenced to one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of payment of fine, three months' simple imprisonment was further awarded. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the...
Shri Chandra Bhan and Others. Vs. Sri Ram Ratan Chhabra and Others.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Heard Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire material available on record.2. This review application has been filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Shri Chandra Bhan plaintiff/appellant and others for reviewing the order dated 15th February 2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court dismissing their first appeal bearing no. 406 of 2001 along with first appeal No. 22 of 2002 filed by Satish Chandra Chhabra, one of the respondents. The main ground raised by Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned Sr. Counsel is that this Court has not considered the plea taken by the appellant about the legal notice dated 05.08.1988 having served upon respondent Ram Ratan Chhabra through his counsel Surendra Prasad Parashar stating that the property should be partitioned by metes and bounds along with the proposal and the site p...
imran S/O Kurban and ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. These two appeals, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C) are directed against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2003, passed by IV Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 2001 and Sessions Trial No. 313 of 2001, whereby appellants Imran, Bhura and Nisar are convicted under section 302 read with section 34, and under section 427 read with section 34 I.P.C. By the same judgment appellant Iqbal has been convicted under section 302 and 427 I.P.C. He has been further convicted under section 25 Arms Act, 1959. Each of the appellants Imran, Bhura, Nisar @ Ghada have been sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 34 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under section 427 read with section 34 IPC. Appellant Iqbal is also sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under section 427 IPC. He (Iq...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »