Court : Himachal Pradesh
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath in Criminal Case No. 57-II of 2001 dated 27.10.2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 326 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/-, simple imprisonment for one year under Section 325 IPC and a fine of Rs. 250/-, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC and a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The Criminal Appeal No. 26-B/X/2004 filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 27.10.2004 has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 27.5.2005 which has been assailed in the revision. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 Manoj Kumar lodged rapat No. 19 dated 30.1.2001 Ex.PW-1/A at Police Station Baijnath at 6.40 p.m. alleging therein that he had parked his taxi HP-01- 8495 at about 6.30 p.m. outside local bus stand. In the meantime, petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2012CrLJ331(NOC)
Surinder Singh, J. Oral: 1. The appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in short ‘the Act’ for allegedly keeping in possession 22.30% charas in the recovered stuff of 1.6 kilograms and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- with the default clause. The learned trial Court also gave him the benefit under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period he remained in custody during the investigation and trial of the case. Hence the present appeal by the appellant hereinafter referred to as “the accused”. 2. In nutshell, prosecution story is that on 23.12.2007 PW6 Inspector Om Parkash accompanied by PW1 S.I. Rajinder Kumar, PW2 HHC Kashmi Ram PW3 HC Pune Ram and Satish Kumar were present at ‘Jangli pul’ in connection with patrolling duty. At about 12.30 p.m. accused came from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Sanjay Karol, J. Oral: 1. This is the case of prosecution that on 23.8.2004, accused went to the shop of Keshav Sahni (PW-1) to purchase ten pieces of T-Shirts. Items were selected and price contracted. Accused tendered two currency notes of denomination of ` 1000/- each towards the sale consideration. PW-1 Keshav Sahni noticed that “perhaps” currency notes handed over by the accused were not genuine, as such he informed the police. Rojnamacha (P-J) was recorded by the police on the basis of which F.I.R No.264/2004 (Ex. PL) dated 7.12.2004 was registered with Police Station Solan under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 420 of Indian Peal Code. Police commenced investigation and SI Anant Ram (PW-9, Inspector(SHO) Smt. Babita Rana (PW- 10) investigated the matter along with ASI Ratan Chand(PW-7) and H.C Madan Lal (PW-6). Four more currency notes of similar denomination were recovered from the possession of the accused. Deputy Manager of Punjab National Bank, Solan namely Mahesh Gambh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2012CrLJ332(NOC)
Surinder Singh, J. oral: 1. The appellant felt aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No.9 of 2010, on 17.7.2010, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The period of detention undergone by the appellant herein, to be referred as “the accused”, during the investigation and trial was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., hence the present appeal. 2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The prosecutrix- a Nepali and her husband PW1 Chinda a local resident are agriculturist residing in remote area of Chamba. They have reared about 20-25 goats and have few cattle heads. The prosecutrix is quite a rustic vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2012CrLJ1743
Surinder Singh, J: 1. The appellant has laid a challenge to his conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No.2 of 2004 decided on 27/29.11.2004, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and three months, for attempted rape on the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, who was deaf and dumb. 2. In brief, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 4th August, 2003, around 7 p.m., the prosecutrix was alongwith her sister and mother Kiran Bala (PW1) while returning from their fields. PW1 aforesaid was ahead of all, followed by her daughters. When PW1 aforesaid reached near her house, she noticed that the prosecutrix was not with them, thus, she started searching for her on the way and in and around the agricultural fields. During search, the father of the prosecutrix also met them, who w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
V.K. Ahuja, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, H.P., dated 30.7.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20.8.1999, a report was lodged with the police by complainant PW-1 Parkash Chand that his younger sister Sudesh Kumari, aged about 24 years, was married with Ram Chand, respondent, on 9.3.1996. Two sons were born from this wedlock. After one year, his sister started complaining to him that her in-laws harass her and her husband Ram Chand also gives her beatings. In the month of July, 1999, on 27th/28th, his sister came to their house and told that she has been turned out by her husband after giving beatings and had kept the children with him. She apprehended a threat to her life from her in-laws. She also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2012CrLJ1837
Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): A. Undisputed Facts:- The appellant was convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and also rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code with the default clauses. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently, which have been challenged in the present appeal. (ii) Admittedly, Smt. Tameshwari Devi, daughter of PW-1 Sh. Bahadur Singh and PW-5 Smt. Himi Devi, was married to the appellant, (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”), in the year 2000. On 21.9.2001 i.e. within 10 months of her marriage, she committed suicide by hanging with the roof of her cowshed in the matrimonial village. B. Prosecution Case:- 2. It is alleged that the accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2012CrLJ2036
Surinder Singh, J (oral): The appellant hereinafter referred as ‘the accused’ has laid challenge in this appeal against his conviction passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No. 12 of 2010, decided on 19.8.2011, for the offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short ‘the Act’ whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. The period of detention of the accused during trial and investigation was ordered to be set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. On 26.12.2009, police party headed by PW7 SI Tilak Raj consisting of ASI Naresh Chand, PW6 HHC Ajay Kumar and Constable Raj Kumar proceeded towards village Dobhi in the area falling under the jurisdiction of po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The appellants who are transporters have filed these two appeals, which are directed against the judgement dated 18th September, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The writ petitions before the learned Single Judge were filed by the State Transport Authority and were directed against the order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal. All the writ petitions were allowed. It appears that other than the present two appellants none of the transporters have challenged the main judgement. 3. The facts relevant for decision of the appeals are that the appellants are owners of Delux buses which have been issued All India Route Permits as contract carriage. One of the stipulations of the permit was that the transporters shall comply with the conditions laid down in Rule 85 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In case of violation of conditions of the Rules, the permit was liable to be cancelled. Respondent No.1 not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2012CrLJ2330
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing order dated 20.4.2010 summoning the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘Act’), order dated 11.5.2011 putting notice of accusation under Section 16(1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (i) of the Act and complaint No. 46/3 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Theog. 2. The facts, in brief, as stated in the petition are that on 8.10.2009 respondent No.2 Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and expressed her intention to take sample of “Atta” which was kept for sale in sealed packs of different quantities viz. 5 Kg./10 Kg. The respondent No. 2 instead of collecting the sample in the same form i.e. in the packed and sealed form in which it was kept for sale, opened the packet and purchased 900 grams of wheat flour out of 5 Kg. sealed pack by cutting it open. 3. The respondent No.2 sent one part of the sample t...
Tag this Judgment!