Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2011 passed by Special Sessions Judge, [N.D.P.S. Act], Champawat, in Special Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2009, whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of six months. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 11.12.2008, police party consisting of PW1 S.I. Bhagwati Prasad Bisht, PW2 Chowki Incharge Chalthi S.I. Shri Bachi Singh Bisht, constable Mahendra Giri, constable Hira Lal Verma, Head constable Bhupendra Singh and constable Bhupal Chandra left the police post Chalthi vide Report No. 10 at about 12:10 p.m. to maintain law and order and to check suspected vehicles and people; when police party reached at Chalthi Bridge, police informer passed on secret informatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J (Oral). Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2011 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Dehradun, in Special Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2010 whereby appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo one year additional simple imprisonment. 2. As per the prosecution story, PW1 SI Madan Singh, PW2 Devendra Singh Panwar, PW3 Constable Ajay Rautela and Constable Pradeep Negi left the police station on 04.06.2010 vide report no.30 at 12.30 p.m. for maintaining law and order and for checking of vehicles; police party was present on Bridge No.2 of Shakti Canal for vehicle checking, meanwhile, one white Maruti car was seen, by the police party, coming from Dakpathar side; having seen the police party, driver of the car stopped the car about 50 metres before and tried...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Informant Bhuvnesh Kumar wrote a complaint to Inspector Incharge, PS Kotwali Jaspur, on 10th May, 2011, enumerating the facts contained therein that on 05.05.2011, co-villager Sunil Kumar alias Sonu S/o Bhagat Ram kidnapped his brother Chandrabhans daughter Menka alias Neha, aged 14 years. Bhuvnesh Kumar stated that he belonged to Diewala. He has been searching for the missing girl Neha, since morning of 08.05.2011. The missing girl was seen in the company of Mulakhraj and Dharmveer by the villagers on 08.05.2011, at about 5:00 p.m. 2. Chik FIR was lodged in PS Jaspur, on 10th May, 2011, at 7:30 a.m. The same was registered as case crime no. 62 of 2012, under Sections 363 and 366A IPC. After the investigation, charge sheet against accused-appellant Sunil Kumar was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC in the Court of Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. When the trial began and prosecution opened ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J. Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate who was earlier appointed as Amicus Curiae, was not present in the Court when appeal was taken up for hearing in pre lunch session. Therefore, Narayan Har Gupta, Advocate present in the Court was requested to appear as Amicus Curiae in the present case. Mr. Narayan Har Gupta, Advocate agreed to argue this appeal in post lunch session. Copy of the paper book was handed over to him. Appeal was taken up for hearing in post lunch session. Present appeal was received through Jail Authority assailing the judgment and order dated 18.02.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in Session Trial No. 1 of 2010, whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part II, 394 and 411 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/, and in default of making payment of fine, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Two complaints were filed and one first information report was lodged against the applicant Shyam Lal Singhla and another. All the three prosecutions were instituted by Arvind Kumar Gupta, Drugs Inspector, Directorate of Medical and Health, Dehradun. 2. Criminal Case No. 1159 of 2004 was instituted by the respondent no. 2 against the applicant and another in the Court of CJM, Rudraprayag, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 18(a) (i) and 18 (vi) /27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 and violation of provisions of DICO 1995 read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. Another criminal case no. 921 of 2004 was instituted by the same respondent against the same accused persons in respect of the selfsame offences in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. Both the criminal case pertain to the taking of sample of Ampirox Capsule. The batch no. of Ampirox Capsule in the criminal case registered in Rudraprayag was A x C D03 and batch no....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J. Although today only bail application No. 574 of 2013 was listed for disposal, however, in view of the fact that lower court record has already been received, Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Brief Holder for the State requested to hear the appeal finally at this stage waiving requirement of the preparation of the paper book. On the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, requirement of preparation of the paper book was waived and appeal was taken up for hearing finally. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2013 and 04.04.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Session Trial No. 222 of 2010, whereby appellant was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of making payment of fine, to u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Although today, bail application is listed, however, since lower court record was available, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, appeal was taken up for final hearing on merit. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2012 whereby appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 / 511 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of 6 months. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW4 Jawwad reported the matter to police station Kotwali Roorkee on 08.12.2011 stating therein that his niece PW1 aged about 7-year was attempted to be raped by the appellant; Imrana (PW3) could save her from the clutches of the appellant; Imrana (PW3) narrated the entire ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) Informant Ved Pal wrote a complaint to Station Officer, police station Gangnahar, Haridwar on 13.03.2009, enumerating the facts contained therein that his daughter Manisha, aged 13 years, who studied in Primary School, Ibrahimpur Deha was missing since 12.03.2009. Manisha went to school on 12.03.2009, but did not return by evening. A frantic search for her was made, but to no avail. Co-villagers Neetu and Rajesh Kumar informed Ved Pal that they saw victim in the company of accused Intzar. Chik FIR (Ext. Ka-7) was registered as case crime no. 50 of 2009, on 13.03.2009, at 10:30 P.M., in respect of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A of IPC. 2) After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Intzar and Aash Mohammad for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376 and 120B of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charges for the offences punis...
Tag this Judgment!