Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
R. F. A. No. 735 of 1994
Dinesh Kumar
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana.
Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Market value--Sale instance--Market value as per sale instances produced by landowner taken to be Rs.60/- per sq. yard--Market value of acquired agricultural land cannot be determined to be same as market value of small residential plots--Acquired land situated within municipal limit and near developed area--Sale instances of 1-½ year prior of acquisition--Reduction of market value to half not justified--Held, market value assessed at Rs. 45/- with all statutory benefits in accordance with Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4 & 6.
Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab & Anr.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Crl. Rev. No. 929 of 2009 (O&M)
Ritesh Gupta
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 06/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Rajiv Vij, Advocate.
Dishonour of Cheque--Conviction--Compounding of offence--Conviction and sentence by Courts below--At revisional stage amount paid by two demand drafts--Parties allowed to compound the offence in view judgment of apex Court in G. Sivarajan’s case--Petitioner acquitted of offence for which he was convicted and sentenced--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138 and 147.
CASES CITED:
1. G. Sivarajan v. Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. 2005 (2) DCR 408 (Para 3)
2. Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel v. Dineshbhai Achalanand Rathi, 2005 Crl. L.J. 431 (Para 3)
3. O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 762 (Para 5)
------------------
Romesh Sharma v. Prem Kumar Sharma
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
F.A.O. No. 145-M of 2001
Romesh Sharma
v.
Prem Kumar Sharma
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
(A) Matrimonial Law--Divorce--Desertion--Parties living separately since September 1994--Averment by wife that she was turned out of matrimonial house after having been belaboured by husband and his family member not reliable--She failed to prove that her husband and his family member used to deprive of her monthly wages--Wife not willing to resume cohabitation--Held; That wife deserted husband for continuous period of not less than two years--|Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(i). (Para 18 & 19)
(B) Matrimonial Law--Divorce--Cruelty--No convincing evidence to corroborate averment by husband that wife wanted him to separate from his family--Husband failed to prove that wife treated him with cruelty--|Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1). (Para 12 & 13)
------------------
Dheeraj Setia v. CBI
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc M-11342 of 2009
Dheeraj Setia
v.
CBI
{Decided on 11/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. APS Deol, Advocate, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Devinderbir Singh, Advocate.
For CBI: Mr Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Abetment of Suicide--Allegations against petitioner who was working as DSP that he did not conduct a fair enquiry and delayed the enquiry--Besides he got FIR registered under wrong provisions of law so as to give benefit to accused--Victim complained of rape being committed on here by police officials--Petitioner did not get victim subjected to medical examination--Petitioner recommended registration of case under Section 376-B/34 IPC--Question whether there is mensrea in the action of the petitioner in recommending the registration of FIR for the offence under Section 376, IPC would have to be established and proved during trial and the matter cannot be tested by a pre-trial and neither can it be pre-judged on the basis of material as available on record--Therefore, it cannot be conclusive said at this stage that he deliberately conducted investigation is complete and chargesheet is filed--In circumstances, petitioner is granted interim bail till such time his application for regular bail it considered by concerned Court--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 306, 506 & 120-B.(Para 9 & 10)

--------------