Court : Sikkim
Wangdi, J. 1. The Appellant was sent up for trial for offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC ) before the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Division II, East Sikkim at Gangtok, registered as Sessions Trial Case No.22 of 2012 and was ultimately found guilty of the offences on both accounts and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- (Rupees five hundred) under Section 363 IPC and, rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) for offences under Section 366 IPC. In default of payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1 month and 2 months respectively for the offences by the impugned judgment dated 25-03-2013. 2(i). Stated briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17-01-2012 at 1340 hours, the Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Gangtok, received a written FIR from Smt. Parbhati Devi, P.W.1, stating that her 14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Wangdi, J. 1. This Appeal arises out of judgment dated 25-03-2013 in Title Suit Case No.2 of 2008 passed by the Learned District Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi by which suit for partition, recovery of possession, damage and consequential reliefs filed by the Appellant was dismissed. 2(i). To state briefly, the case of the Appellant- Plaintiff was that his father Late Harka Bahadur Chettri, resident of Salangdang, West Sikkim, had two wives. While the Appellant-Plaintiff, Tula Rama Chettri and the Respondent-Defendant No.4, Dilli Ram Chettri, are the issues out of first wife, the Respondents-Defendants No.1 and 2 are the sons and the Respondent-Defendant No.3 is the grandson of Late Harka Bahadur Chettri born from Late Tara Kumar Chettri, his eldest son, from his second wife, Smt. Bhagi Maya Chettri, Respondent-Defendant No.5. (ii) It is stated that on 01-01-1974, the properties held by Harka Bahadur Chettri were partitioned in equal shares amongst the Appellant and the Responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Wangdi, J. 1. By this Appeal the Appellant seeks to assail the judgment dated 24-12-2012 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok in S. T. (Vig.) Case No.4 of 2004 by which the Appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act of 1988 ) corresponding to Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947 ) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 corresponding to Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 and was accordingly convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). In default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The factual matrix of the case relevant for the purpose of this Appeal is that based upon a source information, case under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 corresponding to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Sinha, J.1. Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 27.08.2013 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.04 of 2012 by the Sessions Judge, Special Division-II at Gangtok, East Sikkim, the State has filed this Appeal.2. By the impugned judgment, the respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 307 and 323 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-3.1 On 05.03.2011, at about 2315 hours, the four friends, namely, Penjore Dorjee (PW3), Jigmi Dorjee Bhutia (PW2), Ngangom Winnison (PW4) and Kunchok Choppel Tonyot (PW5) had gone to X-Cape Discotheque, Vajra, Gangtok. Respondent and his girlfriend were also present in the discotheque. There some hot exchanges took place between the respondent and these persons, as a result of which they were taken out of the discotheque by the security personnel. The allegations are that, thereafter, the respondent took out a pistol and fired upon Penjore Dorjee (PW3), who received tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Wangdi, J. 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order of the District Collector, East District of Sikkim, dated 23-07-2013 in Misc Case No.28/DM/E of 2011 by which the Certificates of Identification (in short the COI ) bearing Sl. Nos.2928/DCE dated 27-04-1989 and 2927/DCE dated 27-04-1989 issued to Mani Kumar Gurung and Mahendra Gurung, Petitioners No.1 and 2 respectively, were declared invalid and stood cancelled. 2. The primary grounds of challenge against the impugned order are that the principle of natural justice had not been complied with by the District Collector while issuing the impugned order in as much as several representations submitted by the Petitioners had not been Mani Kumar Gurung and Another vs. State of Sikkim and Others considered and opportunity of personal hearing not granted despite their prayers made to that effect. It is next contended that one of the grounds for rejections being the want of registration of the adoption deed by which the Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Sinha, J. 1. The applicant/accused is a driver. On 04.02.2009 he was driving a Maxx vehicle bearing registration number SK-04/6784. There were many occupants in the vehicle including the two deceased persons. The said vehicle was coming from Siliguri to Gangtok. On the way, the applicant tried to overtake the vehicle driven by one Kumar Chettri (PW-3). He rashly and negligently overtook the said vehicle by his Maxx, which ultimately dashed against a wall and, thereafter, fell down 130 feet below from the road. 2. The prosecution came with the case that, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the applicant/accused on National Highway, many persons received grievous injuries and two of them had lost their lives, therefore, the applicant was liable for punishment under Sections 279/338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ). There were two eye witnesses to the incident, namely, Kumar Chettri (PW-3) and Dadiram Sharma (PW-4). Kumar Chettri, as we ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Wangdi, J. 1.This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2013 in S.T. Case No.17 of 2010 of the Learned Sessions Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi, by which the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) for having caused the death of the deceased, Rajesh Chettri. 2. The facts of the case so far as it is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this Appeal are that on 26.04.2010 when the deceased Rajesh Chettri had gone to the house of one Dik Bahadur Rai at Upper Barakheley, Singling, West Sikkim to participate in the marriage celebration of his daughter, an altercation took place between him and the respondent/accused, Aita Hang Subba, in the courtyard of the said Dik Bahadur Rai at about 1400/1430 hours and that the respondent/accused person was seen hitting the deceased Rajesh Chettri with a rounded firewood causing the deceased severe head injuries with the respondent/accused in the process w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Jain, CJ. (Oral). 1. The present Public Interest Litigation arises out of a letter dated 26th March, 2014 written by SaveLIFE Foundation, New Delhi to the Director General of Police, Sikkim and a copy of which was endorsed to the Chief Justice of this Court. Considering the importance of the matter, the said letter was treated as Writ Petition (PIL). It was mentioned in the letter that the Government of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, vide G.S.R. 152(E) dated 5th March, 2014 has deleted the proviso from sub-rule (8) of Rule 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, the Rules of 1989 ), which allowed for good carriages to be loaded with any pole or rods upto 1 meter beyond the rear most point of the motor vehicle. Since the proviso has been deleted, therefore, a ban should be imposed on the goods carrier from carrying protruding rods and poles. The contents of the letter are reproduced as under: - I am writing to bring to your notice the recent notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Jain, CJ (Oral). Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West District at Gyalshing vide her letter/Memo No.544/2014/CJJM (W) dated 26th May, 2014, has referred this matter to this Court stating therein that she has decided the Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 07 of 2013, vide judgment dated 31st October, 2013, sitting alone, whereas as per proviso to Section 5 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000 ), any matter of Juvenile Justice Board has to be decided finally by at least two members of the Board including the Principal Magistrate. She has further mentioned that the said judgment is contrary to proviso of Section 5(3) of the Act of 2000. However, the Board does not have any power to recall such an order, therefore, this Court should pass an appropriate order. The aforesaid letter was ordered to be registered as Crl. Revision Petition. 2. The Revision Petition was admitted and notice was issued to the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Jain, CJ (Oral). Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West District at Gyalshing vide her letter/Memo No.544/2014/CJJM (W) dated 26th May, 2014, has referred this matter to this Court stating therein that she has decided the Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 06 of 2013 vide judgment dated 29th August, 2013, sitting alone, whereas as per proviso to Section 5 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000 ), any matter of Juvenile Justice Board has to be decided finally by at least two members of the Board including the Principal Magistrate. She has further mentioned that the said judgment is contrary to proviso of Section 5(3) of the Act of 2000. However, the Board does not have any power to recall such an order, therefore, this Court should pass an appropriate order. The aforesaid letter was ordered to be registered as Crl. Revision Petition. 2. The Revision Petition was admitted and notice was issued to the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!