Court : Himachal Pradesh
Surinder Singh, J. 1. The appellant was found in possession of 2 Kg. stuff in the bag carried by her which contained 35.89% weight-in-weight resin of Cannabis plant, thus in terms of weight the contents of Charas of the recovered stuff were 717 grams, as such she was convicted for the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs..70,000/-. In default of payment of fine, she was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also accorded. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by her on law and facts. A. Contentions raised before this Court. 2. Shri M.S. Guleria, learned Counsel for the appellant, hereinafter to be referred as the accused, vehemently argue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Sharma, J. 1. The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 24.1.2007 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2002, whereby, the respondents, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused and denoted as A-1 and A-2, respectively, were tried for the offences under Sections 307, 323 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and were ultimately acquitted. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution, as emerges out of statement Ex.PW-1/A of complainant Sukh Pal Singh, recorded by the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) on 31.3.1999 at 8.30 p.m. at Zonal Hospital, Mandi, is that on 31.3.1999 at about 7 p.m., complainant Sukh Pal Singh (PW-1) along with Keshav Ram (PW- 10) and Jaswant Singh (PW-12) was present at his Cycle, Tyre and Scooter Repair Shop, situate at Jail Road, Mandi. In the meantime, at abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Oral: Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision No.204 of 2011 and Criminal Revision No.243 of 2011 both having arisen out of order dated 08.07.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Appeal No. 71-P/X-2010. The facts are given from Criminal Revision No.204 of 2011. 2. The respondent had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short 'Act') through Protection Officer against the petitioner. It has been alleged that marriage of respondent and petitioner was solemnized in 'Chamunda Mata' temple in June, 2002. The respondent was earlier married to Hem Raj and had two children from him. The petitioner contacted second marriage with respondent as his son was mentally retarded. Initially, the petitioner and his family members treated respondent properly. The respondent by raising loan and doing labour work had constructed two rooms and was living with her children in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner has assailed the award dated 20.6.2009 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court in reference No.15 of 2004. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner claims that he was engaged on 1.4.1991 and has continuously worked upto 31.12.1997. His further case is that he was retrenched without complying with the provisions of section 25 (F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity sake). He challenged his retrenchment by filing O.A. No. 1254/1999 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The original application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction on 25.3.2002. Petitioner raised industrial dispute and served demand notice upon the respondents on 21.4.2002. State Government after receiving the failure report made the reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 9.1....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Surinder Singh,J:- 1. The appellant has laid challenge in the present appeal to the judgment of conviction and Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? sentence passed by the learned trial Court in Session Case No. 11-VII-2011, decided on 31.10.2011, under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the Act, for allegedly keeping in his possession 900 grams of Poppy Husk, a non-commercial quantity, to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of ` 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. A. Prosecution Case 3. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the accused was running a Dhaba near Village Churru at Una-Amb road. On 27.9.2010, a police party headed by PW-13 ASI Ashok Kumar of Police Station, Amb was on patrolling in a police vehi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Surinder Singh, J, (Oral) 1. The appellant felt aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No. 17-S/7 of 2010 decided on 29.11.2010 whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in short the Act, for allegedly keeping in his possession 314 grams resin of cannabis plant in the total recovered stuff of 880 grams and sentenced to undergo 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment im-prisonment for a period two years and to pay a fine of `30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two months. The period of detention undergone during the investigation and trial was ordered to be set-off as per provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In nutshell, the prosecution case has been that on 9.6.2010, PW12 S.I. Heera Devi was heading a policy party. They were on patrolling in the area of Dhob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. The State has challenged the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the respondents for offences under Section 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts necessary for consideration in this appeal are that the deceased Alka alias Ashu was the daughter of Roop Lal and was married to respondent No.3 Sheetal Kumar son of Sh. Devinder Dutt. Their marriage was performed despite opposition from the parents of the deceased. The undisputed fact is that it was a love marriage. On 13.9.2000, the marriage was solemnized at Rajgarh. The case of the prosecution is that they resided as husband and wife happily for some time but later on she was harassed for dowry which ultimately compelled her to end her life. 3. Ext. PA is statement of Bachani Devi (PW1). She states that her husband is employed in the Forest Department. They have two sons and two daughters. Alka alias Ashu is the eldest daughter, who has qualified degree of B.Sc....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma, J (Oral): 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, for clarity sake, facts of CWP No. 6550/2010-G have been taken into consideration. 2. Petitioners were permitted to construct shops on Khasra No. 343 in the year 1994. They started paying rent @ Rs.150/- per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.400/-. Petitioners leases/tenancies/licences were cancelled on 15.3.2005. They assailed the notices issued on 15.3.2005 by filing CWP Nos. 217/2005 to 249/2005. These writ petitions were disposed of the Division Bench of this Court on 23.6.2005 by issuing the following directions: 1.) As stated by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur in his affidavit dated 20th June, 2005, the construction of new shopping complex upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 689 shall be completed by 25th August, 2005. Upon completion of this shopping complex, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Ahuja, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 23.12.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.8.2001, at 9.30 a.m., a telephonic message was received at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, that one Parvinder resident of village Alothi has been murdered and police should come and investigate. This information was recorded vide rapat No. 3 dated 16.8.2001. S.H.O. alongwith other police officials proceeded to the spot. He thereafter recorded the statement of Kaushalya Devi, mother of the deceased, in which she had stated that her husband is already dead and she has two sons, namely Parvinder, now deceased and Mohinder, respondent and third her step son Jageshwar, respondent. It was alleged that all the three brothers were living ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. This petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing statements/ confessions of respondents No. 3 to 6 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solan, under section 164 Cr.P.C. and for quashing the orders of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solan, granting pardon to respondents No. 3, 4, under sections 306 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts in brief, as per petitioner, are that an FIR No.10/2009 dated 9.7.2009, has been registered at State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan against petitioner and one another. The respondent No. 2 is the complainant, but despite that he investigated the case. The respondent No. 2 was transferred from Special Investigation Unit to Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla in July 2009; he had no power to investigate the case registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan. 3. The respondent No. 2 had personal interest in false implication of the petitioner, he threatened the respo...
Tag this Judgment!