Court : Uttaranchal
B.S. Verma, J. Oral: This appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 20thDecember 2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 1999 State Vs. Mitthu Lal, whereby the accused-appellant Mitthu Lal has been convicted under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant has been ordered to further undergo six months R.I. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned Assistant G.A. for the State and have perused the record. The prosecution story as unfolded from the record is that on 28-9-1988, complainant Mundelal (PW 1) lodged a written report (Ext. Ka-1) with the Police Station Dharch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2000, whereby said court has convicted accused/ appellant Darban Singh under section 307 IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and directed to pay fine of ` 5,000/. The trial court has further directed that if the fine is not paid by the convict he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.04.1996, at about 8:00 p.m., P.W.3 Kundan Singh was in his tea stall situated in village Harsila, when accused Darban Singh came there in a drunken state, and the two started quarreling. Thereafter, accused Darban Singh took out a knife and stabbed Kundan Singh. The ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1) This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 17.07.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 1995, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellants Madan Pal, Bijendra Pal and Parasram under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and each one of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The trial court has convicted accused/appellant No.2 Dharmu under Section 324 of I.P.C., and he too has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2) Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and perused the lower court record. 3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18.05.1994, at about noon, PW2 Sanjay along with his father Dayaram, grandfather Gainda and uncle Rajpal (PW1) was working in the sugarcane field in Village Kalasiya. When accused/ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1996, whereby said court has acquitted the accused/respondent Jhandu from the charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the State/appellant, and learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/ respondent, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.03.1995, P.W.1 Ravindra was sitting in his fathers shop, in village Numberpur, when at about 6:30 p.m., accused Jhandu came and purchased some items from the shop. He (Jhandu) started leaving the shop without making payment for the articles purchased. On this, P.W.1 Ravindra demanded the money whereafter accused started quarreling with P.W.1 Ravindra. P.W.1 Ravindra thereafter came out, and stopped Jhandu leaving without paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 9-11-2012 shows that notice was issued to the respondent and apart from normal mode of service, liberty was given to the petitioner to serve Dasti upon the respondent. Notice was served Dasti upon the respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit of service in the Registry of this Court. A perusal of office report reveals that notice was also sent by registered post on 21-11-2012 to the respondent but neither undelivered envelope was returned nor any one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent by filing Vakalatnama. Since a period of thirty days has already elapsed from the date of issue of notice by registered post, therefore, service is deemed sufficient on the respondent. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2- 11-2012 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. M. C. Pant, Advocate assisted by Mr. D. S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. B. S. Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent no.7/Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner no.1 is a registered trade union at Pune, Maharashtra for the automobile trade, whereas the petitioner no.2 is not a registered trade union. It seeks to espouse the cause of workers of Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pantnagar / respondent no.7. It further claims that since many of the workers of Bajaj Auto Ltd. are its members, it can espouse the cause of the workers in the capacity of a registered trade union. 3. On the last occasion, Mr. S. N. Babulkar, Senior Advocate and earlier Mr. J. P. Cama, Advocate for the respondent no.7 appeared in the court and had inter-alia submitted that only a trade union registered in the State of Uttarakhand can espouse the cause of the workers. The principal argument was that the petitioners bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J. (1) Both these appeals, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C), are directed against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2001, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No.48 of 2000, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellants Shyam (S/o Raj Kumar), Bunti (S/o Ram Kishore), Deepak (S/o Ram Kishore) and Banti (S/o Ramesh Kumar) under section 323 read with section 34 and under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. Each one of convicts has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under section 323/34 I.P.C, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 324/34 of I.P.C. (2) Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants, and Learned Additional Government Advocate, for the State, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.04.1999, at about 7.30 p.m., PW1 Suraj Thapa was on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
B.S. Verma, J. Oral: By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/award dated 7-7-1999, published on 17-7-1999, passed by the respondent No.2 (Labour Court) in Industrial Claim Case No. 243 of 1998, Regional Manager U.P. S.R.T.C. Dehradun Vs. Rajendra Kumar, U/S 4(K) of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent No.3, Rajendra Kumar was engaged as a conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, region Dehradun. On 12-5-1994, he was on duty with Bus No. 9626 on route Mussorrie Dehradun. The checking staff headed by Checking Inspector of the Corporation checked the aforesaid Bus and four 12 persons travelling in the bus without ticket. Thereafter a charge sheet dated 22-9-1994 was issued against the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 22.10.1994. The enquiry was transferred to Assistant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) 1. Respondents have been served. Learned Advocates, Mr. Navneet Kaushik and Mr. Mohd. Umar, have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents. Their names are appearing in the list, but they are not appearing. 2. There has been 84 days delay in preferring the appeal and, accordingly, an Application for condonation of delay has been filed. No one is seeking to object the said Application. We have perused the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay and have found that the reason for the delay was delay in granting permission to prefer appeal. What could be done when the same was done, could also be done within the time by which the same was required to be done. Therefore, though there is no good reason for the delay; but, having regard to the fact that the Government is required to depend on discharge of duties by Government servants and, it is because of the laches on the part of the Government servants that there has been delay in preferri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. One Shiv Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Patwari Thati Badma on 13.02.2005, enumerating the facts contained therein that on 12.02.2005, at 5:00 p.m., informants daughter Geeta Devi came with her husband Anand Singh to her matrimonial home. Everybody took meals together. Anand Singh and Geeta Devi slept in another house of the informant. When they did not wake up till 8:00 p.m. on the next day, informant pushed the door and called them. On failing to get any response from inside, informant called the villagers, who broke opened the window and found that the couple was dead. As has been mentioned above, the couple was the daughter and son-in-law of informant Shiv Singh. 2. On the basis of said first information report, which was registered as case crime no. 01/2005, under Section 302 IPC in Patti Syur Bangar, investigation began. Investigating Officer took the statements of informant and other witnesses, conducted inquest, sent the dead bodies for postmortem, in...
Tag this Judgment!