S.34--Evidence Act, 1872--Expert Evidence--Permanent Injunction--Notice to plaintiff that he stood guarantor by mortgaging his house by deposite of original sale deed as collateral security for repayment of loan--Statement of plaintiff that he never signed documents to create mortgage duly supported by report of hand writing expert and finger print expert--Case of plaintiff that envelop containing original sale deed was left in house of defendant no.2 and in view to defraud him he gave it to defendant no.1 for securing loan--No person examined by defendants to prove that signature were appended by plaintiff in their presence on documents regarding deposit of title deeds--Mere fact that plaintiff did not lodge any complaint against defendant no.2 did not mean that liability could be fastened upon them which was otherwise not proved--Finding of Courts below that plaintiff created mortgage in respect of property in dispute by way of deposit of title dead as collateral security for repayment of loan advance set aside. ; Ranbir Singh & Ors. v. Haryana Financial Corporation & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 597
S.34--Permanent Injunction--Challenge to--Hand Writing Expert--Disputed signature appended in 1995--Specimen signature appended in 2001--There could be some variations, between the signatures appended by person, a few year earlier, and the signatures, appended by him after the gap of a few years of his earlier signatures--But, there cannot be complete dissimilarity, on account of the aforesaid reason.; Ranbir Singh & Ors. v. Haryana Financial Corporation & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 597
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
PUNJAB PUBLIC PREMISES AND LAND (EVICTION AND RENT RECOVERY) ACT, 1973
S.4 & 5--Eviction--Two petition--Maintainability of--If land in earlier proceedings as well as subsequent proceedings is same then second application is not maintainable--Trial Court (Original authority) directed to find out as to whether land in both proceedings are same.; Chand Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Rehurianwali and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 619
PUNJAB POLICE RULES, 1934
R.16.2--Dismissal from service--Misconduct--Allegations of misconduct levelled against plaintiff/respondent entailing his dismissal from service did not occur during performance of his official duties as Police constable--Provision of Rule 16.2 not attracted--In case certificate allegedly submitted by plaintiff/respondent of Middle Standard examination found to be forged then criminal case could have been registered against him but he could not be dismissed from service--Impugned order of dismissal from service set-aside.; State of Punjab through the Collector Bathinda, District Bathinda. v. Chamkaur Singh Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 606
PUNJAB OCCUPANCY TENANTS ACT
Occupancy Right--Possession--Relinquishment deed--Reliance on--Plaintiff claiming himself to be in possession for more than 50 years--In earlier suit filed by plaintiff in 1986 alleging his possession to be for more than 20 years over suit land as tenant--In that suit he did not claim occupancy rights and consequential ownership over suit land--Finding of fact that plaintiff is no longer in possession of suit land since 9.8.1988 when he had relinquished possession in favour of defendant no. 1 to 4--Claim of plaintiff rightly declined.; Jai Lal v. Jagbir & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 617
Occupancy Rights--Relinquishment deed--Plaintiff not in possession of suit land since 9.8.1988 when he relinquished possession in favour of defendant no.1 to 4--Claim of plaintiff that he acquired occupancy right since he is in possession for more than 50 years declined--In earlier suit he never claimed such rights but alleging his possession for more than 20 years as tenant. ; Jai Lal v. Jagbir & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 617
Occupancy Rights--Relinquishment deed--Plaintiff not in possession of suit land since 9.8.1988 when he relinquished possession in favour of defendant no.1 to 4--Claim of plaintiff that he acquired occupancy right since he is in possession for more than 50 years declined--In earlier suit he never claimed such rights but alleging his possession for more than 20 years as tenant. ; Jai Lal v. Jagbir & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 617
PUNJAB EXCISE ACT, 1914
S.32--Punjab Brewery Rules, 1956, R.35--Excise Duty--Manner in which duty may be levied--Scope of Section 32 and Rule 35-Discussed in detail in case of Haryana Brewery limited.; Skol Breweries Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 591
S.32--Punjab Brewery Rules, 1956, R.35--Excise Duty--Manner in which duty may be levied--Duty levied on alleged excess wastage of more than 7% without recording any finding about correctness of entries made in relevant registers maintained by manufacture as well as excise officials--No objections whatever were raised regarding actual production shown by petitioner in its returns filed with Excise Department as well as financial statement--Finding that beer manufactured was illegally removed was not recorded--Finding that wastage more than 7% cannot be claimed not justified--Case remanded to decide afresh.; Skol Breweries Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 591
S.32--Punjab Brewery Rules, 1956, R.35--Excise Duty--Manner in which duty may be levied--Duty levied on alleged excess wastage of more than 7% without recording any finding about correctness of entries made in relevant registers maintained by manufacture as well as excise officials--No objections whatever were raised regarding actual production shown by petitioner in its returns filed with Excise Department as well as financial statement--Finding that beer manufactured was illegally removed was not recorded--Finding that wastage more than 7% cannot be claimed not justified--Case remanded to decide afresh.; Skol Breweries Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 591
PUNJAB BREWERY RULES, 1956
R.35--Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.32--Excise Duty--Manner in which duty may be levied--Scope of Section 32 and Rule 35-Discussed in detail in case of Haryana Brewery limited.; Skol Breweries Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 591
R.35--Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.32--Excise Duty--Manner in which duty may be levied--Duty levied on alleged excess wastage of more than 7% without recording any finding about correctness of entries made in relevant registers maintained by manufacture as well as excise officials--No objections whatever were raised regarding actual production shown by petitioner in its returns filed with Excise Department as well as financial statement--Finding that beer manufactured was illegally removed was not recorded--Finding that wastage more than 7% cannot be claimed not justified--Case remanded to decide afresh.; Skol Breweries Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 591
R.35--Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.32--Excise Duty--Manner in which duty may be levied--Duty levied on alleged excess wastage of more than 7% without recording any finding about correctness of entries made in relevant registers maintained by manufacture as well as excise officials--No objections whatever were raised regarding actual production shown by petitioner in its returns filed with Excise Department as well as financial statement--Finding that beer manufactured was illegally removed was not recorded--Finding that wastage more than 7% cannot be claimed not justified--Case remanded to decide afresh.; Skol Breweries Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 591
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985
S.15 & 40--Recovery of contraband--Acquittal--Composite notice served upon all four accused--Offer not valid--Provisions of Section 50 not complied with--Appellants acquitted giving benefit of doubt.; Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 637
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Acquittal--Accused found in possession of 19 kgs. and 250 gms. of poppy husk--Delay of 10 days in sending sample to Chemical Examiner--Other evidence produced by prosecution to prove complete of link evidence neither reliable nor trustworthy--Possibility of tampering with sample could not be ruled out--Conviction of accused set aside.; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Delay in sending sample--Acquittal--It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively, that right from the date of seizure, until the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, it was not tampered with--If the prosecution fails to prove this factum, then its case is bound to dwindle down.; Beera Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Independent witness--Acquittal--In absence of corroboration through an independent source, the evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be disbelieved and distrusted, blind-foldely, if the same is found to be creditworthy.; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Independent witness--Acquittal--When the evidence of the official witnesses, is found to be not cogent convincing, reliable and trustworthy, then on account of non-corroboration thereof, through an independent source, a doubt in cast, on the prosecution case. ; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Non-Commercial Quantity--Acquittal--Recovery of 19 kg. and 250 gms. of poppy husk constituting non-commercial quality--Contradiction in evidence of official witnesses--In absence of furnishing of any explanation case of prosecution became doubtful--Conviction set aside.; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law ; Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Sample--Tempering of--Acquittal--One specimen impression produced before SHO--Three seals found in existence on chit affixed on report of Chemical Examiner--Specimen impression of other seals was not produced before SHO who appeared as prosecution witness--Casts doubt on prosecution story that sample was tampered with until it reached office of Chemical Examiner--Conviction set aside.; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.25--Recovery of contraband--Punishment for allowing conveyance to be used for commission of offence--Registered owner of jeep in question has not been joined investigation--Held that it was obligatory upon investigator to have challaned registered owner.; Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 637
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Acquittal--Accused found in possession of 19 kgs. and 250 gms. of poppy husk--Delay of 10 days in sending sample to Chemical Examiner--Other evidence produced by prosecution to prove complete of link evidence neither reliable nor trustworthy--Possibility of tampering with sample could not be ruled out--Conviction of accused set aside.; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Delay in sending sample--Acquittal--It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively, that right from the date of seizure, until the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, it was not tampered with--If the prosecution fails to prove this factum, then its case is bound to dwindle down.; Beera Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Independent witness--Acquittal--In absence of corroboration through an independent source, the evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be disbelieved and distrusted, blind-foldely, if the same is found to be creditworthy.; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Independent witness--Acquittal--When the evidence of the official witnesses, is found to be not cogent convincing, reliable and trustworthy, then on account of non-corroboration thereof, through an independent source, a doubt in cast, on the prosecution case. ; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Non-Commercial Quantity--Acquittal--Recovery of 19 kg. and 250 gms. of poppy husk constituting non-commercial quality--Contradiction in evidence of official witnesses--In absence of furnishing of any explanation case of prosecution became doubtful--Conviction set aside.; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law ; Herald (P&H) 586
S.15--Recovery of contraband--Sample--Tempering of--Acquittal--One specimen impression produced before SHO--Three seals found in existence on chit affixed on report of Chemical Examiner--Specimen impression of other seals was not produced before SHO who appeared as prosecution witness--Casts doubt on prosecution story that sample was tampered with until it reached office of Chemical Examiner--Conviction set aside.; Beera Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 586
S.25--Recovery of contraband--Punishment for allowing conveyance to be used for commission of offence--Registered owner of jeep in question has not been joined investigation--Held that it was obligatory upon investigator to have challaned registered owner.; Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 637
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
S.173--Compensation--Liability of Insurance Company--Valid Driving License--License for heavy motor vehicles issued by RTA, and not by licensing Authority--Lateron, it was renewed upto 19.11.2010--No witness from office of RTA summoned to prove that license was not issued by it--Report made by licensing Authority and RTA confirm that driver was holding valid driving license to drive Heavy Motor Vehicles at time of accident--Insurance Company failed to discharge its onus--Insurance Company is solely liable to pay compensation and has no right of recovery from owner and driver of vehicle.; Haryana Industrial Company Hisar & Anr. v. Sulochna & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 601
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
S.279 and 304-A--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.401--Motor Accident--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Eye witnesses--Alleged witnesses, brother of deceased and Panch neither accompanied injured to hospital or had gone to report matter to Police Station--Ruqa sent by doctor recorded that unknown injured was brought by driver of offending bus--Sequence of events clearly established that no body witnessed occurrence--No other cogent independent evidence to prove that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner--Accused acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.279 and 304-A--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.401--Rash and Negligent Driving--Conviction--Eye witnesses--FIR--Delay--No explanation as to why alleged eyewitnesses did not report matter to police on same day--Delay of more than 15 hours in recording FIR remained unexplained casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution version--Prosecution failed to prove charge against petitioner, driver of offending bus--Petitioner deserves benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.279/304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child--Court to examine whether parents of child had acted like prudent person and had taken care of child--Parents had not taken care of their child--Accused acquitted.; Keshav v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 614
S.279/304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child who came below front tyre of bus--Parents of child were standing on side of road were exchanging pleasantries (joking remarks) with their uncle--Mother was carrying a Gathri on her head and a hen was lying on ground--Child could not be restrained and she moved towards road--Moreover, neither draftsman nor photographer examined--Court unable to decide whether accident took place on side of road or in middle of road--Witnesses not deposed that driver was driving vehicle rashly or negligently--Thus, it can be safely inferred that parents had not taken care of their child aged 1½ years--In totality of these circumstances, it will not be safe to upheld conviction of petitioner--Petitioner granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of charges.; Keshav v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 614
S.302, 307 r/w S.34--Murder--Acquittal--Appeal against--Occurrence took place on 1.7.1996 at 4 p.m.--FIR registered at 5.45 p.m.--Special report sent to Illaqa Magistrate after 4 hours of occurrence--Delay in registration of FIR and sending special report to Illaqa Magistrate is fatal to prosecution case--Accused acquitted.; Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohan Lal & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 624
S.302, 364-A, 120-B and 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town -Not a case of murder simpliciter but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom and even independent of penal provisions of Section 302 IPC--No iota of evidence to show enmity between parties, therefore, this is a case of cold blooded murder committed only in order to extract a heavy ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- which is evident from evidence of (PW27) father of the deceased that every time, while calling on phones, the kidnapper gave him threats that if he wanted his son to be alive, he should immediately arrange for ransom amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. It appears as the police became active, the accused could not extract the ransom and out of panic, poisoned the boy to death by administering heavy dozes of chloroform and fortwin--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.; Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 561 (SC)
S.302. 307 r/w S.34--Murder--Appeal against--Acquittal--Husband killing wife alongwith brother by strangulation with rope--Number of persons were present at scene of occurrence but no one rescued deceased from clutches of accused--No independent witness examined despite availability--Withholding of eye witnesses from examination creates doubt about prosecution story when weapon of crime i.e. rope put around neck of deceased not recovered--Identify of deceased was declared unknown when brought to hospital--Absence of injury marks on body parts where they should have been under facts and circumstances sufficient ground to disbelieve and discard prosecution story--Deliberate improvements made by witnesses while stepping into witness box so as to confirm prosecution version--Said concocted version has left marks of doubt and probabilities--No interference in order of acquittal. ; Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohan Lal & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 624
S.306--Abetment to suicide--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Death of wife due to 100% burns--Circumstances considered while reducing sentence to already undergone i.e. one year are:-
(i) Marriage of appellant at time of occurrence was 20 years old. He was having three children of 14, 12 and 8 years of age at time of occurrence and family of deceased was dependent upon appellant.
(ii) Mother and two brothers of the deceased deposed in favour of the appellant.
(iii) Two sons and one daughter and their family would suffer from a scar in case appellant is sent behind bars.
(iv) Appellant has suffered a protracted trial of 15 years.; Rajeshwar v. State of Haryana; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 603
S.306--Abetment to Suicide--Dying declaration--Conviction--Death of wife due to 100% deep burns--Allegation of illicit relations by wife against husband in 20 years old marriage--Fact recorded in dying declaration that deceased used to beat his wife daily and on day of occurrence also thrashed her cannot be ignored--Giving beating was immediate cause which led deceased to commit suicide--Thus appellant was rightly convicted.; Rajeshwar v. State of Haryana; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 603
S.307, 324 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Ocular version put forward by eye witnesses duly corroborated by medical evidence--FSL report supports ocular account that shot was fired from 12 bore DBBL gun--Lodging of FIR prompt--Case proved beyond reasonable doubt--Conviction upheld--However keeping in view facts and circumstances period of sentence already undergone would meet end of justice.; Chhota Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 623
S.307, 324, 323, 148 and 149--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Attempt to murder--Quashing of FIR--On basis of compromise--Parties decided to live in peace--No useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue--FIR qua petitioner quashed.; Baljinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 618
S.364-A, 302, 120-B & 201--Kidnapping for ransom--Murder--Death sentence--Parliament in dealing with kidnapping for ransom a crime which called for a deterrent punishment, even in a case where the kidnapping had not resulted in the death of the victim--The statistics further reveal that kidnapping for ransom has become a lucrative and thriving industry all over the country which must be dealt with, in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on Courts as well--Courts to lend a helping hand in that direction--Not only was victim kidnapped for ransom which acts which would by itself attract the death penalty but he was murdered in the process--Death sentence could be awarded even in a case of kidnapping and murder based on circumstantial evidence.; Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 561 (SC)
S.417--Forgery--Impersonation--Acquittal--Sale deed--Original owners who were allegedly impersonated not examined by prosecution--No efforts made to summon these witnesses--They could be said to be material witnesses to prove that they never executed sale deed in respect of property in dispute--No evidence produced to prove that photo impressions of photographs on copies of sale deeds were not of original owners--No effort made to get compared questioned thumb impressions of alleged vendors on copies of sale deeds with standard or specimen thumb impressions of original owners--Statement of witnesses that original owners were not living in village and their whereabouts were not known could not be said to be sufficient to prove that they did not execute sale deed--They were not attesting witnesses of sale deeds--Their evidence of no avail to prove that original owners were impersonated-Court below wrong in coming to conclusion that it was duty of accused to produce original owners--Findings, that accused committed offence u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B without any evidence liable to be set aside.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Criminal trespass--Quashing of FIR--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed. ; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577
S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577;
S.467, 468, 419, 420 & 109--Forgery--Acquittal--Offence of forgery can only be committed in relation to original documents and not with respect to copies thereof--Case of prosecution that ‘D’ impersonated co-owner and got sale executed deed in her favour--Original sale deeds admittedly in respect where forgery was allegedly committed did not see light of day at any point of time during trial of the case--Only copies thereof were produced on record--No explanation as to why original sale deeds were not recovered from vendees during course of investigation--In absence of production of original document no offences under Section 467, 468, 419, 420 and 109 were committed by accused--No legally admissible evidence on basis whereof conviction could be recorded--Petitioners acquitted.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
S.279 and 304-A--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.401--Rash and Negligent Driving--Conviction--Eye witnesses--FIR--Delay--No explanation as to why alleged eyewitnesses did not report matter to police on same day--Delay of more than 15 hours in recording FIR remained unexplained casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution version--Prosecution failed to prove charge against petitioner, driver of offending bus--Petitioner deserves benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.279/304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child--Court to examine whether parents of child had acted like prudent person and had taken care of child--Parents had not taken care of their child--Accused acquitted.; Keshav v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 614
S.279/304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child who came below front tyre of bus--Parents of child were standing on side of road were exchanging pleasantries (joking remarks) with their uncle--Mother was carrying a Gathri on her head and a hen was lying on ground--Child could not be restrained and she moved towards road--Moreover, neither draftsman nor photographer examined--Court unable to decide whether accident took place on side of road or in middle of road--Witnesses not deposed that driver was driving vehicle rashly or negligently--Thus, it can be safely inferred that parents had not taken care of their child aged 1½ years--In totality of these circumstances, it will not be safe to upheld conviction of petitioner--Petitioner granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of charges.; Keshav v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 614
S.302, 307 r/w S.34--Murder--Acquittal--Appeal against--Occurrence took place on 1.7.1996 at 4 p.m.--FIR registered at 5.45 p.m.--Special report sent to Illaqa Magistrate after 4 hours of occurrence--Delay in registration of FIR and sending special report to Illaqa Magistrate is fatal to prosecution case--Accused acquitted.; Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohan Lal & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 624
S.302, 364-A, 120-B and 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town -Not a case of murder simpliciter but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom and even independent of penal provisions of Section 302 IPC--No iota of evidence to show enmity between parties, therefore, this is a case of cold blooded murder committed only in order to extract a heavy ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- which is evident from evidence of (PW27) father of the deceased that every time, while calling on phones, the kidnapper gave him threats that if he wanted his son to be alive, he should immediately arrange for ransom amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. It appears as the police became active, the accused could not extract the ransom and out of panic, poisoned the boy to death by administering heavy dozes of chloroform and fortwin--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.; Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 561 (SC)
S.302. 307 r/w S.34--Murder--Appeal against--Acquittal--Husband killing wife alongwith brother by strangulation with rope--Number of persons were present at scene of occurrence but no one rescued deceased from clutches of accused--No independent witness examined despite availability--Withholding of eye witnesses from examination creates doubt about prosecution story when weapon of crime i.e. rope put around neck of deceased not recovered--Identify of deceased was declared unknown when brought to hospital--Absence of injury marks on body parts where they should have been under facts and circumstances sufficient ground to disbelieve and discard prosecution story--Deliberate improvements made by witnesses while stepping into witness box so as to confirm prosecution version--Said concocted version has left marks of doubt and probabilities--No interference in order of acquittal. ; Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohan Lal & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 624
S.306--Abetment to suicide--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Death of wife due to 100% burns--Circumstances considered while reducing sentence to already undergone i.e. one year are:-
(i) Marriage of appellant at time of occurrence was 20 years old. He was having three children of 14, 12 and 8 years of age at time of occurrence and family of deceased was dependent upon appellant.
(ii) Mother and two brothers of the deceased deposed in favour of the appellant.
(iii) Two sons and one daughter and their family would suffer from a scar in case appellant is sent behind bars.
(iv) Appellant has suffered a protracted trial of 15 years.; Rajeshwar v. State of Haryana; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 603
S.306--Abetment to Suicide--Dying declaration--Conviction--Death of wife due to 100% deep burns--Allegation of illicit relations by wife against husband in 20 years old marriage--Fact recorded in dying declaration that deceased used to beat his wife daily and on day of occurrence also thrashed her cannot be ignored--Giving beating was immediate cause which led deceased to commit suicide--Thus appellant was rightly convicted.; Rajeshwar v. State of Haryana; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 603
S.307, 324 r/w S.34--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Ocular version put forward by eye witnesses duly corroborated by medical evidence--FSL report supports ocular account that shot was fired from 12 bore DBBL gun--Lodging of FIR prompt--Case proved beyond reasonable doubt--Conviction upheld--However keeping in view facts and circumstances period of sentence already undergone would meet end of justice.; Chhota Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 623
S.307, 324, 323, 148 and 149--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Attempt to murder--Quashing of FIR--On basis of compromise--Parties decided to live in peace--No useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue--FIR qua petitioner quashed.; Baljinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 618
S.364-A, 302, 120-B & 201--Kidnapping for ransom--Murder--Death sentence--Parliament in dealing with kidnapping for ransom a crime which called for a deterrent punishment, even in a case where the kidnapping had not resulted in the death of the victim--The statistics further reveal that kidnapping for ransom has become a lucrative and thriving industry all over the country which must be dealt with, in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on Courts as well--Courts to lend a helping hand in that direction--Not only was victim kidnapped for ransom which acts which would by itself attract the death penalty but he was murdered in the process--Death sentence could be awarded even in a case of kidnapping and murder based on circumstantial evidence.; Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 561 (SC)
S.417--Forgery--Impersonation--Acquittal--Sale deed--Original owners who were allegedly impersonated not examined by prosecution--No efforts made to summon these witnesses--They could be said to be material witnesses to prove that they never executed sale deed in respect of property in dispute--No evidence produced to prove that photo impressions of photographs on copies of sale deeds were not of original owners--No effort made to get compared questioned thumb impressions of alleged vendors on copies of sale deeds with standard or specimen thumb impressions of original owners--Statement of witnesses that original owners were not living in village and their whereabouts were not known could not be said to be sufficient to prove that they did not execute sale deed--They were not attesting witnesses of sale deeds--Their evidence of no avail to prove that original owners were impersonated-Court below wrong in coming to conclusion that it was duty of accused to produce original owners--Findings, that accused committed offence u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B without any evidence liable to be set aside.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Criminal trespass--Quashing of FIR--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed. ; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577
S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577;
S.467, 468, 419, 420 & 109--Forgery--Acquittal--Offence of forgery can only be committed in relation to original documents and not with respect to copies thereof--Case of prosecution that ‘D’ impersonated co-owner and got sale executed deed in her favour--Original sale deeds admittedly in respect where forgery was allegedly committed did not see light of day at any point of time during trial of the case--Only copies thereof were produced on record--No explanation as to why original sale deeds were not recovered from vendees during course of investigation--In absence of production of original document no offences under Section 467, 468, 419, 420 and 109 were committed by accused--No legally admissible evidence on basis whereof conviction could be recorded--Petitioners acquitted.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
HARYANA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1994
S.392--Levy EDC (External Development Charges)--For sanction of additional construction in existing complex of factory--Payment of EDC does not find expressed under any of provisions of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act--Approval of building plan for existing structure was obtained over a period of time on 14.11.1969, 18.12.1982 and 19.10.1192 but EDC was never collected for all such occasions--If increase in FAR on concomitant enhancement to municipal services would justify an imposition of new charges, corporation could obtain same only with reference to specific power granted under the Act--Corporation not entitled to recover EDC.; M/s ABB Limited, Plot No.32, Industrial Area NIT Faridabad v. Municipal Corporation Faridabad & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 583
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34--Expert Evidence--Permanent Injunction--Notice to plaintiff that he stood guarantor by mortgaging his house by deposite of original sale deed as collateral security for repayment of loan--Statement of plaintiff that he never signed documents to create mortgage duly supported by report of hand writing expert and finger print expert--Case of plaintiff that envelop containing original sale deed was left in house of defendant no.2 and in view to defraud him he gave it to defendant no.1 for securing loan--No person examined by defendants to prove that signature were appended by plaintiff in their presence on documents regarding deposit of title deeds--Mere fact that plaintiff did not lodge any complaint against defendant no.2 did not mean that liability could be fastened upon them which was otherwise not proved--Finding of Courts below that plaintiff created mortgage in respect of property in dispute by way of deposit of title dead as collateral security for repayment of loan advance set aside. ; Ranbir Singh & Ors. v. Haryana Financial Corporation & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 597
S.43--Forgery--Sale deed--Binding effect of Civil Court Judgment in Criminal Trial--Merely, on the basis of the Civil Court judgments, it could not be conclusively held, in the Criminal Trial, that the sale deeds were the result of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation--Under these circumstances, the judgments of the Civil Court, cannot be said to be binding, on the Criminal Court, for the purpose of deciding the guilt of the accused, in a criminal case.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
S.116--Estoppel--Title--Defendant claimed himself to be lessee in property--Even he admitted in cross examination that he had been paying lease money to plaintiff--He is estopped from denying title of her owner/landlord during subsistence of such lease.; Dalipa @ Dhakkar Shah v. Punjab Wakf Board (A Corporate Body) Ambala Cantt., through its Secretary/Ex. Officio, Mutawali.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 580
S.43--Forgery--Sale deed--Binding effect of Civil Court Judgment in Criminal Trial--Merely, on the basis of the Civil Court judgments, it could not be conclusively held, in the Criminal Trial, that the sale deeds were the result of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation--Under these circumstances, the judgments of the Civil Court, cannot be said to be binding, on the Criminal Court, for the purpose of deciding the guilt of the accused, in a criminal case.; Budh Ram v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 631
S.116--Estoppel--Title--Defendant claimed himself to be lessee in property--Even he admitted in cross examination that he had been paying lease money to plaintiff--He is estopped from denying title of her owner/landlord during subsistence of such lease.; Dalipa @ Dhakkar Shah v. Punjab Wakf Board (A Corporate Body) Ambala Cantt., through its Secretary/Ex. Officio, Mutawali.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 580
EAST PUNJAB RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949
S.13--Ejectment--Bonafide necessity--It is for landlord to decide what exactly would he like to do with commercial premises owned by him subject to proof of bonafides on his part--Fact that landlord filed petition within about one year of his retirement would not draw inference that need put forward by him was not bonafide--Also, landlord does not require particular expertise in business of cloth which he wanted to start in tenanted premises--Order of ejectment upheld.; M/s Mukandi Lal Sat Narain v. Sham Lal & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 621
S.13--Eviction--Co-owner--Mesne Profit--No declaratory suit is required to be filed by co-owner prior to filing a suit for eviction against a person in unauthorized occupation--It was for appellant/defendants to prove that landlord of appellants had any title in property or that he was co-owner--Once it is proved that landlord of appellant sold his share and was no longer co-sharer of property in dispute learned Courts justified in ordering eviction in absence of declaratory decree of his status--Co-owner under law is entitled to seek eviction of a person whether in unauthorized occupation or tenant.; Mohammad Ikhlaq & Ors. v. Alok Gupta & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 595
S.13--Eviction--Co-owner--Mesne Profit--No declaratory suit is required to be filed by co-owner prior to filing a suit for eviction against a person in unauthorized occupation--It was for appellant/defendants to prove that landlord of appellants had any title in property or that he was co-owner--Once it is proved that landlord of appellant sold his share and was no longer co-sharer of property in dispute learned Courts justified in ordering eviction in absence of declaratory decree of his status--Co-owner under law is entitled to seek eviction of a person whether in unauthorized occupation or tenant.; Mohammad Ikhlaq & Ors. v. Alok Gupta & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 595
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
S.401--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.279 and 304-A--Motor Accident--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Eye witnesses--Alleged witnesses, brother of deceased and Panch neither accompanied injured to hospital or had gone to report matter to Police Station--Ruqa sent by doctor recorded that unknown injured was brought by driver of offending bus--Sequence of events clearly established that no body witnessed occurrence--No other cogent independent evidence to prove that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner--Accused acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.401--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.279 and 304-A--Revision--Rash and Negligent Driving--Conviction--Eye witnesses--FIR--Delay--No explanation as to why alleged eyewitnesses did not report matter to police on same day--Delay of more than 15 hours in recording FIR remained unexplained casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution version--Prosecution failed to prove charge against petitioner, driver of offending bus--Petitioner deserves benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 324, 323, 148 and 149--Quashing of FIR--Attempt to murder--On basis of compromise--Parties decided to live in peace--No useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue--FIR qua petitioner quashed.; Baljinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 618
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577;
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal trespass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed. ; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577
S.401--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.279 and 304-A--Revision--Rash and Negligent Driving--Conviction--Eye witnesses--FIR--Delay--No explanation as to why alleged eyewitnesses did not report matter to police on same day--Delay of more than 15 hours in recording FIR remained unexplained casts a shadow of doubt on prosecution version--Prosecution failed to prove charge against petitioner, driver of offending bus--Petitioner deserves benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 324, 323, 148 and 149--Quashing of FIR--Attempt to murder--On basis of compromise--Parties decided to live in peace--No useful purpose would be served in allowing these proceedings to continue--FIR qua petitioner quashed.; Baljinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 618
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577;
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal trespass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed. ; Purshotam Saini & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 577
CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Criminal Jurisprudence--Cardinal fundamental principles--To be kept in focus while deciding criminal cases--Absolute onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt--Accused cannot possibly be convicted without any legal substantive evidence as the evidence is essential element in the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations alleged against the accused because criminal proceedings require strict proof of guilt--It is the evidence, on the basis of which, the decision of a criminal court is based and is the requirement of criminal justice--Otherwise, in the absence of the same, the courts have no option but to record an order of acquittal howsoever painful the same may be.; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 610
IMPORTANT POINTS
Abetment to suicide--Dying declaration--Death of wife due to 100% deep burns--Fact recorded in dying declaration that deceased used to beat his wife daily and on day of occurrence also thrashed her--Appellant husband was rightly convicted. 603
Accident--Compensation--Liability of Insurance Company--Driver was holding Valid Driving License to drive Heavy Motor Vehicles at time of accident-- Insurance Company is solely liable to pay compensation and has no right of recovery from owner and driver of vehicle. 601
Accident--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Eye witnesses--Alleged witnesses, neither accompanied injured to hospital or had gone to report matter to Police Station--Ruqa sent by doctor recorded that unknown injured was brought by driver of offending bus--Sequence of events clearly established that no body witnessed occurrence--Accused acquitted. 610
Dismissal from service--Misconduct--In case certificate allegedly submitted by plaintiff/respondent of Middle Standard examination found to be forged then criminal case could have been registered against him but he could not be dismissed from service. 606
Eviction--Co-owner--Co-owner under law is entitled to seek eviction of a person whether in unauthorized occupation or tenant without obtaining declaratory decree on his favour . 596
Kidnapping for ransom and murder--All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner--Sentence converted from death sentence to life imprisonment. 561
Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child--Court to examine whether parents of child had acted like prudent person and had taken care of child--Parents had not taken care of their child--Accused acquitted. 614
Narcotic--Delay in sending sample--Acquittal--It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively, that right from the date of seizure, until the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, it was not tampered with--If the prosecution fails to prove this factum, then its case is bound to dwindle down. 586
Narcotic--Independent witness--Acquittal--When the evidence of the official witnesses, is found to be not cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy, then on account of non-corroboration thereof, through an independent source, a doubt in cast, on the prosecution case. 586
Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed. 577
----------
Accident--Compensation--Liability of Insurance Company--Driver was holding Valid Driving License to drive Heavy Motor Vehicles at time of accident-- Insurance Company is solely liable to pay compensation and has no right of recovery from owner and driver of vehicle. 601
Accident--Rash and Negligent Driving--Acquittal--Eye witnesses--Alleged witnesses, neither accompanied injured to hospital or had gone to report matter to Police Station--Ruqa sent by doctor recorded that unknown injured was brought by driver of offending bus--Sequence of events clearly established that no body witnessed occurrence--Accused acquitted. 610
Dismissal from service--Misconduct--In case certificate allegedly submitted by plaintiff/respondent of Middle Standard examination found to be forged then criminal case could have been registered against him but he could not be dismissed from service. 606
Eviction--Co-owner--Co-owner under law is entitled to seek eviction of a person whether in unauthorized occupation or tenant without obtaining declaratory decree on his favour . 596
Kidnapping for ransom and murder--All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner--Sentence converted from death sentence to life imprisonment. 561
Motor Accident--Rash and negligent driving--Acquittal--Death of 1½ years child--Court to examine whether parents of child had acted like prudent person and had taken care of child--Parents had not taken care of their child--Accused acquitted. 614
Narcotic--Delay in sending sample--Acquittal--It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively, that right from the date of seizure, until the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, it was not tampered with--If the prosecution fails to prove this factum, then its case is bound to dwindle down. 586
Narcotic--Independent witness--Acquittal--When the evidence of the official witnesses, is found to be not cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy, then on account of non-corroboration thereof, through an independent source, a doubt in cast, on the prosecution case. 586
Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed. 577
----------
Wakf Property--Ownership--Wakf Board proved to be owner of property in dispute vide notification alongwith list of wakf properties--No evidence produced as to how ownership from Wakf Board to ‘Shamlat Deh’ in respect land changed in subsequent Jamabandi and Khasra girdawris
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
R.S.A. No. 861 of 1993
Dalipa @ Dhakkar Shah
v.
Punjab Wakf Board (A Corporate Body) Ambala Cantt.,
through its Secretary/Ex. Officio, Mutawali.
{Decided on 01/12/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, with Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate,
(A) Wakf Act, 1995--Wakf Property--Ownership--Wakf Board proved to be owner of property in dispute vide notification alongwith list of wakf properties--No evidence produced as to how ownership from Wakf Board to ‘Shamlat Deh’ in respect land changed in subsequent Jamabandi and Khasra girdawris--No reliance could be placed on Jamabandi and Khasra girdawris--Held, that Wakf Board is owner of property in dispute. (P.12)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.116--Estoppel--Title--Defendant claimed himself to be lessee in property--Even he admitted in cross examination that he had been paying lease money to plaintiff--He is estopped from denying title of her owner/landlord during subsistence of such lease. (P.13)
(C) Wakf Act, 1995--Tenancy--Termination of--Title--Encroachment--Defendant claimed himself to be lessee of property in dispute--Denied title of his owner in respect of property--His tenancy stood automatically terminated--Plaintiff entitled to decree for possession. (P.13)
(D) Wakf Act, 1995--Wakf Property--Encroachment--Possession--Jurisdiction--Civil Court--Property in dispute proved to be in ownership of Wakf Board vide notification accompanying details of wakf properties--Civil Court competent to entertain and try suit for possession. (P.13)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
R.S.A. No. 861 of 1993
Dalipa @ Dhakkar Shah
v.
Punjab Wakf Board (A Corporate Body) Ambala Cantt.,
through its Secretary/Ex. Officio, Mutawali.
{Decided on 01/12/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, with Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate,
(A) Wakf Act, 1995--Wakf Property--Ownership--Wakf Board proved to be owner of property in dispute vide notification alongwith list of wakf properties--No evidence produced as to how ownership from Wakf Board to ‘Shamlat Deh’ in respect land changed in subsequent Jamabandi and Khasra girdawris--No reliance could be placed on Jamabandi and Khasra girdawris--Held, that Wakf Board is owner of property in dispute. (P.12)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.116--Estoppel--Title--Defendant claimed himself to be lessee in property--Even he admitted in cross examination that he had been paying lease money to plaintiff--He is estopped from denying title of her owner/landlord during subsistence of such lease. (P.13)
(C) Wakf Act, 1995--Tenancy--Termination of--Title--Encroachment--Defendant claimed himself to be lessee of property in dispute--Denied title of his owner in respect of property--His tenancy stood automatically terminated--Plaintiff entitled to decree for possession. (P.13)
(D) Wakf Act, 1995--Wakf Property--Encroachment--Possession--Jurisdiction--Civil Court--Property in dispute proved to be in ownership of Wakf Board vide notification accompanying details of wakf properties--Civil Court competent to entertain and try suit for possession. (P.13)
Sunday, April 11, 2010
HARYANA LIQUOR LICENSE RULES, 1970
R.37(36)--Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.36(b)--Cancellation of Liquor Vend Licence--Non-payment of license fee--Notice--Petitioner was called to payment of outstanding license fee and in failure thereof to face consequence of cancellation--Notice was duly served but no reply filed by petitioner--Action of respondent cancelling of liquor vend licence not illegal.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
R.37(36)--Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.36(b)--Non-payment of license fee--Forfeitures of security--Petitioner did not pay license fee despite demand being raised--Show cause notice duly served on petitioner--Security amount deposited by petitioner rightly forfeited and liqour vend to be re-auctioned.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
R.37(36)--Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.36(b)--Petitioner accepted license in name shown therein and deposited license fee and sold liquor w.e.f. April, 1984 to August, 1984--He cannot avoid recovery/forfeiture for non-payment of license fee on ground that his request to correct record deleting names of partners by substituting name of petitioner as sole proprietor was turned down.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
R.37(36)--Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.36(b)--Non-payment of license fee--Forfeitures of security--Petitioner did not pay license fee despite demand being raised--Show cause notice duly served on petitioner--Security amount deposited by petitioner rightly forfeited and liqour vend to be re-auctioned.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
R.37(36)--Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.36(b)--Petitioner accepted license in name shown therein and deposited license fee and sold liquor w.e.f. April, 1984 to August, 1984--He cannot avoid recovery/forfeiture for non-payment of license fee on ground that his request to correct record deleting names of partners by substituting name of petitioner as sole proprietor was turned down.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
S.24 and 26--Defective Meter--Penalty--On ground that meter was found running slow--Respondent/Plaintiff never confronted with checking report nor it was signed by its authorised representative--Principles of natural justice not complied with--Besides provisions of Section 26 also violated--Penalty not liable to be imposed.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 659
S.26--Defective meter--Penalty--If there was a dispute regarding the meter, the matter was to be decided upon an application of either of the parties by the Electrical Inspector. His report was essentially to determine the extent of the amount of energy supplied to the consumer to ascertain the liability.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 659
S.26--Defective meter--Penalty--If there was a dispute regarding the meter, the matter was to be decided upon an application of either of the parties by the Electrical Inspector. His report was essentially to determine the extent of the amount of energy supplied to the consumer to ascertain the liability.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 659
ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910
S.26(6)--Theft of Electric Energy--Penalty--Demand of--No artificial means used to commit alleged electrical theft--Case of Board that meter in question was not registering consumption but same was not tested from competent laboratory--Impugned demand of penalty set aside.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Amarjit Singh Chadha ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 641
S.26(6)--Theft of Electric Energy--Penalty--Meter having defective one phase--If there is a dispute as to whether meter is correct or faulty it is only Electrical Inspector who has jurisdiction to quantify penalty etc after matter is referred to him--Board has no authority to impose penalty.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Amarjit Singh Chadha ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 641
S.26(6)--Theft of Electric energy--Penalty--Natural Justice--Neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing given to plaintiff-respondent--Proper procedure prescribed under the Act not adopted before raising impugned demand--Principles of natural justices violated--Appellant-Board not competent at their own level to claim any extra amount for slow, defective meter or non-registering of energy on one phase.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Amarjit Singh Chadha ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 641
S.26(6)--Theft of Electric Energy--Penalty--Meter having defective one phase--If there is a dispute as to whether meter is correct or faulty it is only Electrical Inspector who has jurisdiction to quantify penalty etc after matter is referred to him--Board has no authority to impose penalty.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Amarjit Singh Chadha ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 641
S.26(6)--Theft of Electric energy--Penalty--Natural Justice--Neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing given to plaintiff-respondent--Proper procedure prescribed under the Act not adopted before raising impugned demand--Principles of natural justices violated--Appellant-Board not competent at their own level to claim any extra amount for slow, defective meter or non-registering of energy on one phase.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Amarjit Singh Chadha ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 641
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
S.154--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 and 34--FIR--Delay in lodging--Police Station from place of occurrence or residential house where dead body was brought back not more than 2 furlongs--Complainant had access to a car in which injured was first taken to civil hospital and then to hospital to Amritsar and when he died his dead body was brought back during night--During entire night occurrence was neither disclosed to police nor to any Panchayat member--Co-villagers cited to witness in disclosure statements and recoveries of weapons of offence were in village--In such circumstances, conduct of witnesses in lodging FIR after such a delay is quite unnatural which raises legitimate inference that prosecution version is highly doubtful--Appellant acquitted.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.439(2)--Bail--Cancellation of Bail--High Court and also the Court of Session is empowered to order the arrest of a person released on bail for committing him to custody--Power under Section 439(2) is unfettered, though such power has to be exercised judiciously--It is not necessary that the power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. can only be exercised at the instance of the State in case instituted by the State--Complainant is entitled to move such an application he being an aggrieved person and also an important witness in the case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Arms Act, 1959, S.25, 27, 24, 54 & 59--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Locus Standi--Complainant is entitled to move application for cancellation of bail being an aggrieved person and important witness in case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Bail granted on medical report--No material produced that after being granted bail accused is under continuous treatment--During period of 2006-07 there was not serious ailment with petitioner--In July 2007, Aliment of epilepsy was inserted in diagnosis and some tablets were prescribed--There is tempering in register--Fact that bail is procured with fraud is sufficient to recall order of bail--Bail granted to accused by playing fraud cancelled.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 498-A--Quashing of FIR--Abetment to suicide--Compromise between the parties--Accepted--Once the matter has been compromised no useful purpose shall be served, by proceeding with prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court.; Pawan Kumar @ Pappu & Ors. v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 672
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409, 418, 420, 468, 477-A r/w Section 34 and 120-B--Cheating--Complaint--Summoning order--Quashing of--Charging of alleged higher price of the goods supplied; invocation of the bank guarantee, for the recovery of the amount, allegedly due to the SAIL, against the complainant firms; and non-giving of rebate, to the complainant firms, on the goods supplied, by the SAIL, did not amount to deceiving the complainant firms, nor did it amount to the commission of offence of cheating--Allegations, contained in the complaint also, in any way, does not constitute the dishonest misappropriation of any money, by the SAIL--All these matters basically constituted civil dispute, between the parties, and civil suits, are already pending between them--None of the allegations, contained in the complaint, constituted a criminal offence--The complainant firms, converted a dispute of civil nature, into a dispute of criminal nature, so as to put pressure, upon the SAIL, and its officers, who could not be held to be liable vicariously, as per the provisions of the IPC, to come to the terms--The summoning orders and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations, in the first information report, or complaint taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--Exercise of--
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. ; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.439(2)--Bail--Cancellation of Bail--High Court and also the Court of Session is empowered to order the arrest of a person released on bail for committing him to custody--Power under Section 439(2) is unfettered, though such power has to be exercised judiciously--It is not necessary that the power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. can only be exercised at the instance of the State in case instituted by the State--Complainant is entitled to move such an application he being an aggrieved person and also an important witness in the case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Arms Act, 1959, S.25, 27, 24, 54 & 59--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Locus Standi--Complainant is entitled to move application for cancellation of bail being an aggrieved person and important witness in case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Bail granted on medical report--No material produced that after being granted bail accused is under continuous treatment--During period of 2006-07 there was not serious ailment with petitioner--In July 2007, Aliment of epilepsy was inserted in diagnosis and some tablets were prescribed--There is tempering in register--Fact that bail is procured with fraud is sufficient to recall order of bail--Bail granted to accused by playing fraud cancelled.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 498-A--Quashing of FIR--Abetment to suicide--Compromise between the parties--Accepted--Once the matter has been compromised no useful purpose shall be served, by proceeding with prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court.; Pawan Kumar @ Pappu & Ors. v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 672
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409, 418, 420, 468, 477-A r/w Section 34 and 120-B--Cheating--Complaint--Summoning order--Quashing of--Charging of alleged higher price of the goods supplied; invocation of the bank guarantee, for the recovery of the amount, allegedly due to the SAIL, against the complainant firms; and non-giving of rebate, to the complainant firms, on the goods supplied, by the SAIL, did not amount to deceiving the complainant firms, nor did it amount to the commission of offence of cheating--Allegations, contained in the complaint also, in any way, does not constitute the dishonest misappropriation of any money, by the SAIL--All these matters basically constituted civil dispute, between the parties, and civil suits, are already pending between them--None of the allegations, contained in the complaint, constituted a criminal offence--The complainant firms, converted a dispute of civil nature, into a dispute of criminal nature, so as to put pressure, upon the SAIL, and its officers, who could not be held to be liable vicariously, as per the provisions of the IPC, to come to the terms--The summoning orders and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations, in the first information report, or complaint taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--Exercise of--
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. ; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
Partition--Decree against dead person--Validity of--Defendant, predecessor-in-interest of appellant expired during pendency of suit--It was duty of legal representatives of deceased to come on record of their own and contest the suit--Counsel of defendant continued to represent-defendant and impugned decree passed in his presence--Moreover no prejudice is shown to have caused to appellant--No illegality in impugned decree.; Angrej Singh & Ors. v. Jhandu alias Jhandi alias Miadi & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 646
S.11--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.2, R.2--Res-judicata--Second Suit--Previous suit instituted by plaintiff for permanent injunction only and it during pending of said suit or after dismissal thereof defendant has taken possession of suit plot--Instant suit for possession would not be barred by Resjudicata.; Dharambir & Ors. v. Chet Ram ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 716
S.100--Second Appeal--Substantial question of law--Any substantial question of law based upon argument which was not raised before Courts below cannot be raised in regular second appeal.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Amarjit Singh Chadha ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 641
S.148--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21, R.34(2)--Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 28--Extension of time for deposit of balance sale amount--Suit filed by DH was decreed by the trial court on 21.4.1987--DH was required to deposit the balance amount within two months thereof--DH accordingly deposited the same on 18.5.1987--Said amount remained deposited with the executing court for more than a year--Said amount was withdrawn by DH with permission of the court apparently in the year 1989 when execution petition was adjourned sine die in view of interim stay granted by High Court in second appeal--After final decision of the second appeal by High Court vide judgment dated 22.12.1995, both the parties agitated the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLPs--After the SLPs were also dismissed the DH filed application dated 2.4.1997 for revival of the execution petition which had earlier been adjourned sine die--However, DH died on 26.5.1997--His LRs thereafter moved application on 7.8.1997 in the executing court under section 148 CPC for extension of time--Pursuant to order dated 4.9.1997 passed by the executing court, the decree holder deposited the balance amount on 14.10.1997--In this manner the executing court is deemed to have granted extension of time to the decree holder for deposit of the balance sale price--DH made sufficient ground for extension of time.; Rai Singh v. Mohinder Singh LRs.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 701
O.2, R.2--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11--Second Suit--Res-judicata--Previous suit instituted by plaintiff for permanent injunction only and it during pending of said suit or after dismissal thereof defendant has taken possession of suit plot--Instant suit for possession would not be barred by Resjudicata.; Dharambir & Ors. v. Chet Ram ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 716
O.21, R.34(2)--Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 28--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.148--Extension of time for deposit of balance sale amount--Suit filed by DH was decreed by the trial court on 21.4.1987--DH was required to deposit the balance amount within two months thereof--DH accordingly deposited the same on 18.5.1987--Said amount remained deposited with the executing court for more than a year--Said amount was withdrawn by DH with permission of the court apparently in the year 1989 when execution petition was adjourned sine die in view of interim stay granted by High Court in second appeal--After final decision of the second appeal by High Court vide judgment dated 22.12.1995, both the parties agitated the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLPs--After the SLPs were also dismissed the DH filed application dated 2.4.1997 for revival of the execution petition which had earlier been adjourned sine die--However, DH died on 26.5.1997--His LRs thereafter moved application on 7.8.1997 in the executing court under section 148 CPC for extension of time--Pursuant to order dated 4.9.1997 passed by the executing court, the decree holder deposited the balance amount on 14.10.1997--In this manner the executing court is deemed to have granted extension of time to the decree holder for deposit of the balance sale price--DH made sufficient ground for extension of time.; Rai Singh v. Mohinder Singh tho. LRs.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 701
O.41, R.27--Partition--Additional evidence--Writing regarding purchase of 2/5th share of land measuring 11 marlas on 21.11.1968 not relied upon by appellants in their pleadings--Aforesaid writing has no evidentiary value as same being beyond pleadings--Application for leading additional evidence rightly rejected.; Angrej Singh & Ors. v. Jhandu alias Jhandi alias Miadi & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 646
S.11--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.2, R.2--Res-judicata--Second Suit--Previous suit instituted by plaintiff for permanent injunction only and it during pending of said suit or after dismissal thereof defendant has taken possession of suit plot--Instant suit for possession would not be barred by Resjudicata.; Dharambir & Ors. v. Chet Ram ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 716
S.100--Second Appeal--Substantial question of law--Any substantial question of law based upon argument which was not raised before Courts below cannot be raised in regular second appeal.; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Amarjit Singh Chadha ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 641
S.148--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21, R.34(2)--Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 28--Extension of time for deposit of balance sale amount--Suit filed by DH was decreed by the trial court on 21.4.1987--DH was required to deposit the balance amount within two months thereof--DH accordingly deposited the same on 18.5.1987--Said amount remained deposited with the executing court for more than a year--Said amount was withdrawn by DH with permission of the court apparently in the year 1989 when execution petition was adjourned sine die in view of interim stay granted by High Court in second appeal--After final decision of the second appeal by High Court vide judgment dated 22.12.1995, both the parties agitated the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLPs--After the SLPs were also dismissed the DH filed application dated 2.4.1997 for revival of the execution petition which had earlier been adjourned sine die--However, DH died on 26.5.1997--His LRs thereafter moved application on 7.8.1997 in the executing court under section 148 CPC for extension of time--Pursuant to order dated 4.9.1997 passed by the executing court, the decree holder deposited the balance amount on 14.10.1997--In this manner the executing court is deemed to have granted extension of time to the decree holder for deposit of the balance sale price--DH made sufficient ground for extension of time.; Rai Singh v. Mohinder Singh LRs.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 701
O.2, R.2--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11--Second Suit--Res-judicata--Previous suit instituted by plaintiff for permanent injunction only and it during pending of said suit or after dismissal thereof defendant has taken possession of suit plot--Instant suit for possession would not be barred by Resjudicata.; Dharambir & Ors. v. Chet Ram ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 716
O.21, R.34(2)--Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 28--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.148--Extension of time for deposit of balance sale amount--Suit filed by DH was decreed by the trial court on 21.4.1987--DH was required to deposit the balance amount within two months thereof--DH accordingly deposited the same on 18.5.1987--Said amount remained deposited with the executing court for more than a year--Said amount was withdrawn by DH with permission of the court apparently in the year 1989 when execution petition was adjourned sine die in view of interim stay granted by High Court in second appeal--After final decision of the second appeal by High Court vide judgment dated 22.12.1995, both the parties agitated the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLPs--After the SLPs were also dismissed the DH filed application dated 2.4.1997 for revival of the execution petition which had earlier been adjourned sine die--However, DH died on 26.5.1997--His LRs thereafter moved application on 7.8.1997 in the executing court under section 148 CPC for extension of time--Pursuant to order dated 4.9.1997 passed by the executing court, the decree holder deposited the balance amount on 14.10.1997--In this manner the executing court is deemed to have granted extension of time to the decree holder for deposit of the balance sale price--DH made sufficient ground for extension of time.; Rai Singh v. Mohinder Singh tho. LRs.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 701
O.41, R.27--Partition--Additional evidence--Writing regarding purchase of 2/5th share of land measuring 11 marlas on 21.11.1968 not relied upon by appellants in their pleadings--Aforesaid writing has no evidentiary value as same being beyond pleadings--Application for leading additional evidence rightly rejected.; Angrej Singh & Ors. v. Jhandu alias Jhandi alias Miadi & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 646
ARMS ACT, 1959
S.25, 27, 24, 54 & 59--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Locus Standi--Complainant is entitled to move application for cancellation of bail being an aggrieved person and important witness in case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
IMPORTANT POINTS
Accident--Liability of insurance company starts only from date of issue of cover note and not from date when surveyor inspects vehicle. 660
Acquisition of land for public purpose--Mere existence or unforeseen emergency would not by itself be sufficient for dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry. 684
Bail--Cancellation of--Application not necessarily be moved by State only--An aggrieved person or important witness can also move such an application. 694
Bail--Cancellation of--Bail obtained by fraud, is sufficient to recall order of bail. 694
Electricity--Theft of --Penalty--Meter having defective one phase--If there is a dispute as to whether meter is correct or faulty it is only Electrical Inspector who has jurisdiction to quantify penalty etc after matter is referred to him--Board has no authority to impose penalty. 641
Injunction--Permanent Injunction--Possession--Without giving finding regarding possession relief of injunction could not have been granted--Consequent finding regarding possession of plaintiff cannot be deemed to be relief of declaration. 649
Liquor Vend--Licence Fee--Non-payment of--Is valid ground to forfeit security and re-auction liquor vend and to recover difference of license fee. 718
Narcotics--Reduction of sentence--Appellant found in possession of 22½ kg. poppy husk--Appellant claiming to be a first offender and a poor person--His entire family said to be dependant upon him--Sentence of imprisonment reduced to already undergone by him. 651
Second Appeal--Any substantial question of law based upon argument which was not raised before Courts below cannot be raised in regular second appeal. 641
---------------
Acquisition of land for public purpose--Mere existence or unforeseen emergency would not by itself be sufficient for dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry. 684
Bail--Cancellation of--Application not necessarily be moved by State only--An aggrieved person or important witness can also move such an application. 694
Bail--Cancellation of--Bail obtained by fraud, is sufficient to recall order of bail. 694
Electricity--Theft of --Penalty--Meter having defective one phase--If there is a dispute as to whether meter is correct or faulty it is only Electrical Inspector who has jurisdiction to quantify penalty etc after matter is referred to him--Board has no authority to impose penalty. 641
Injunction--Permanent Injunction--Possession--Without giving finding regarding possession relief of injunction could not have been granted--Consequent finding regarding possession of plaintiff cannot be deemed to be relief of declaration. 649
Liquor Vend--Licence Fee--Non-payment of--Is valid ground to forfeit security and re-auction liquor vend and to recover difference of license fee. 718
Narcotics--Reduction of sentence--Appellant found in possession of 22½ kg. poppy husk--Appellant claiming to be a first offender and a poor person--His entire family said to be dependant upon him--Sentence of imprisonment reduced to already undergone by him. 651
Second Appeal--Any substantial question of law based upon argument which was not raised before Courts below cannot be raised in regular second appeal. 641
---------------
Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008
Purshotam Saini & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Anr
{Decided on 27/01/2010}
For the Petitioner(s).: Mr. PS Sikand, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal trespass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008
Purshotam Saini & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Anr
{Decided on 27/01/2010}
For the Petitioner(s).: Mr. PS Sikand, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal trespass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant having lost up to Supreme Court on civil side is abusing process of law and Court by filing FIR so as to defeat vested civil rights of petitioners--Earlier FIR against predecessor-in-interest of petitioner on similar allegations of taking forcible possession of Land culminated in acquittal of all accused persons--Continuance of proceeding would be abuse of process of Court--FIR quashed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.452, 448, 506 and 151--Quashing of FIR--Criminal Tresspass--Allegations of taking forcible possession of Land--Complainant on civil side lost upto Supreme Court--Earlier FIR lodged against predecessor-in-interest of petition on similar allegation culminated into acquittal of accused--Filing of FIR to defeat vested civil rights of petitioner quashed.
Kidnapping for ransom and murder--All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner--Sentence converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 561
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1396-1397 of 2008
Vikram Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 25/01/2010}
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Mr. Jaspal Singh, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Mr. Prem Malhotra, Mr. A.K. Singh, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Mr. Sanchit Guru, Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Mr. Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Kidnapping for ransom and murder--All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner--Sentence converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 302, 364-A, 120-B and 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town -Not a case of murder simpliciter but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom and even independent of penal provisions of Section 302 IPC--No iota of evidence to show enmity between parties, therefore, this is a case of cold blooded murder committed only in order to extract a heavy ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- which is evident from evidence of (PW27) father of the deceased that every time, while calling on phones, the kidnapper gave him threats that if he wanted his son to be alive, he should immediately arrange for ransom amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. It appears as the police became active, the accused could not extract the ransom and out of panic, poisoned the boy to death by administering heavy dozes of chloroform and fortwin--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment. (P. 25)
On facts :
Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--A case that involves kidnapping of a school going innocent boy for ransom--Accused had raised a demand of Rs.50,00,000/- from father of the deceased boy who was an established jeweller- All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Murder of the deceased was committed by administering chloroform and fortwin injections in heavy dozes after tying his both hands and legs and putting a tape on his mouth--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner- Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town --Not a case of murder simplicitor but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom--Sessions Court convicted and sentenced all the accused to death for kidnapping a young child and subsequently been done to death--High Court confirmed the death sentence of the accused/appellants--Appeal--Presence of PW-13 and PW-19 found natural at the places they professed to be, thus, cannot be dubbed as chance witnesses--Medical Board opined that the cause of death was chloroform and pentazocine poisoning--Recoveries showed that almost the entire bottle of Chloroform (500 ml.) and all five Fortwin injections been used by the kidnappers and that this lethal combination of Chloroform and an over dose of pentazocine was the cause of death--Wife of A-2 attempted to destroy the evidence relating to the kidnapping when she had been apprehended--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment-- Appeal dismissed. (Para 25 to 30)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 364-A, 302, 120-B, 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom--Death sentence--Parliament in dealing with kidnapping for ransom a crime which called for a deterrent punishment, even in a case where the kidnapping had not resulted in the death of the victim--The statistics further reveal that kidnapping for ransom has become a lucrative and thriving industry all over the country which must be dealt with, in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on Courts as well--Courts to lend a helping hand in that direction--Not only was victim kidnapped for ransom which acts which would by itself attract the death penalty but he was murdered in the process--Death sentence could be awarded even in a case of kidnapping and murder based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 26)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1396-1397 of 2008
Vikram Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 25/01/2010}
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Mr. Jaspal Singh, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Mr. Prem Malhotra, Mr. A.K. Singh, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Mr. Sanchit Guru, Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Mr. Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Kidnapping for ransom and murder--All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner--Sentence converted from death sentence to life imprisonment.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 302, 364-A, 120-B and 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town -Not a case of murder simpliciter but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom and even independent of penal provisions of Section 302 IPC--No iota of evidence to show enmity between parties, therefore, this is a case of cold blooded murder committed only in order to extract a heavy ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- which is evident from evidence of (PW27) father of the deceased that every time, while calling on phones, the kidnapper gave him threats that if he wanted his son to be alive, he should immediately arrange for ransom amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. It appears as the police became active, the accused could not extract the ransom and out of panic, poisoned the boy to death by administering heavy dozes of chloroform and fortwin--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment. (P. 25)
On facts :
Murder--Kidnapping for ransom and murder--Death sentence--A case that involves kidnapping of a school going innocent boy for ransom--Accused had raised a demand of Rs.50,00,000/- from father of the deceased boy who was an established jeweller- All three accused-appellant committed offence of murder in a pre-planned manner by using scientific methods--Murder of the deceased was committed by administering chloroform and fortwin injections in heavy dozes after tying his both hands and legs and putting a tape on his mouth--Soon after kidnapping, deceased was reduced to a corpus with the help of chemicals and he was done to death in inhuman, diabolical and dastardly manner- Deceased was the only son on his parents and incident of his kidnapping had sent a shock wave throughout the town --Not a case of murder simplicitor but the accused persons have also been held guilty under Section 364-A IPC which was brought in statute book in order to curb the menace of kidnapping for ransom--Sessions Court convicted and sentenced all the accused to death for kidnapping a young child and subsequently been done to death--High Court confirmed the death sentence of the accused/appellants--Appeal--Presence of PW-13 and PW-19 found natural at the places they professed to be, thus, cannot be dubbed as chance witnesses--Medical Board opined that the cause of death was chloroform and pentazocine poisoning--Recoveries showed that almost the entire bottle of Chloroform (500 ml.) and all five Fortwin injections been used by the kidnappers and that this lethal combination of Chloroform and an over dose of pentazocine was the cause of death--Wife of A-2 attempted to destroy the evidence relating to the kidnapping when she had been apprehended--No interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court against the A-1 and A-2--Sentence of A3 converted from death sentence to life imprisonment-- Appeal dismissed. (Para 25 to 30)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 364-A, 302, 120-B, 201--Murder--Kidnapping for ransom--Death sentence--Parliament in dealing with kidnapping for ransom a crime which called for a deterrent punishment, even in a case where the kidnapping had not resulted in the death of the victim--The statistics further reveal that kidnapping for ransom has become a lucrative and thriving industry all over the country which must be dealt with, in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on Courts as well--Courts to lend a helping hand in that direction--Not only was victim kidnapped for ransom which acts which would by itself attract the death penalty but he was murdered in the process--Death sentence could be awarded even in a case of kidnapping and murder based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 26)
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
S.41--Bonafide Transferee--Vendor was in possession of property as ostensible owner with consent of plaintiffs/respondent--Defendant, vendee at time of purchase examined revenue record where mutation of inherence was in favour of vendor--Transaction entered into by defendant was in good faith and for consideration--Will shown first time in suit--Defendant entitled to benefit of Section 41 of T.P. Act.; Tharu Ram v. Jatinde Singh & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 530
S.41--Specific Relief Act, 1963--Bonafide Purchaser--Specific performance--Agreement to sell--Specific stand taken by plaintiff/respondent no.1 that transaction of sale in favour of appellants was sham transaction to defeat rights of plaintiffs--It was specially pleaded that appellants are real brothers of vendor and sale deed in their favour could not affect legal of plaintiff to seek relief of specific performance--Appellant even did not claim an issue of bonafide purchasers for consideration--It cannot be said that appellants were bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Notice--Service of--Presumption--Termination of tenancy--Presumption of service, of a letter addressed at a correct address can be drawn in case it is not received back served or otherwise--Once a letter sent is received back with the remarks by the Postal Authorities, then it has to be decided on facts of each case whether service can be presumed or not.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Service of--Presumption--When letter is received back with report ‘Not Present’, no presumption of service can be drawn unless something more is proved by leading cogent evidence that it was in fact refusal--No such evidence led by plaintiff-appellant--Tenancy was not held to be terminated by valid notice.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Service of--Presumption--Notice returned with remarks ‘Not Present’--Plaintiff gave a suggestion that it was refused on date of dispatch itself--But no proof of refusal given nor any evidence led to prove this suggestion--Contention that service by certificate of posting could be presumed cannot be sustained when notice issued did not carry any date showing termination of tenancy.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Service of--Presumption--In case it is proved, that there is no role of the addressee in sending back the letter and the letter, is received back by the sender with the remarks ‘Not Present’ no presumption can be drawn of addressee’s service, as ‘the return’ itself shows that letter was actually not served--Learned trial court was not correct in recording that under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the notice is merely to be dispatched.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Mode of Service--Section 106 gives liberty to serve the notice, by post or tender or deliver it to the party or one of his family members or servant at his residence, and in case such tender and delivery is not practicable affix it at the conspicuous place of the property.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Termination of tenancy--Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties--Tenant not disputed rent note--In written statement filed in rent petition relationship of landlord and tenant admitted--Tenant estopped from challenging title of landlord.; Badrinath v. Gaushala Trust Society,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 534
S.106--Termination of tenancy--Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties--Neither tenant himself nor any other witness appeared to support of his pleadings--Allegations of tenants with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant remained unrebutted--Finding of fact by Courts below that there exists a relationship of between land lord and tenant--No interference.; Badrinath v. Gaushala Trust Society,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 534
S.41--Bonafide Transferee--Vendor was in possession of property as ostensible owner with consent of plaintiffs/respondent--Defendant, vendee at time of purchase examined revenue record where mutation of inherence was in favour of vendor--Transaction entered into by defendant was in good faith and for consideration--Will shown first time in suit--Defendant entitled to benefit of Section 41 of T.P. Act.; Tharu Ram v. Jatinde Singh & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 530
S.41--Specific Relief Act, 1963--Bonafide Purchaser--Specific performance--Agreement to sell--Specific stand taken by plaintiff/respondent no.1 that transaction of sale in favour of appellants was sham transaction to defeat rights of plaintiffs--It was specially pleaded that appellants are real brothers of vendor and sale deed in their favour could not affect legal of plaintiff to seek relief of specific performance--Appellant even did not claim an issue of bonafide purchasers for consideration--It cannot be said that appellants were bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Notice--Service of--Presumption--Termination of tenancy--Presumption of service, of a letter addressed at a correct address can be drawn in case it is not received back served or otherwise--Once a letter sent is received back with the remarks by the Postal Authorities, then it has to be decided on facts of each case whether service can be presumed or not.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Service of--Presumption--When letter is received back with report ‘Not Present’, no presumption of service can be drawn unless something more is proved by leading cogent evidence that it was in fact refusal--No such evidence led by plaintiff-appellant--Tenancy was not held to be terminated by valid notice.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Service of--Presumption--Notice returned with remarks ‘Not Present’--Plaintiff gave a suggestion that it was refused on date of dispatch itself--But no proof of refusal given nor any evidence led to prove this suggestion--Contention that service by certificate of posting could be presumed cannot be sustained when notice issued did not carry any date showing termination of tenancy.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Service of--Presumption--In case it is proved, that there is no role of the addressee in sending back the letter and the letter, is received back by the sender with the remarks ‘Not Present’ no presumption can be drawn of addressee’s service, as ‘the return’ itself shows that letter was actually not served--Learned trial court was not correct in recording that under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the notice is merely to be dispatched.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.5 R.20-A--Termination of tenancy--Notice--Mode of Service--Section 106 gives liberty to serve the notice, by post or tender or deliver it to the party or one of his family members or servant at his residence, and in case such tender and delivery is not practicable affix it at the conspicuous place of the property.; Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 502
S.106--Termination of tenancy--Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties--Tenant not disputed rent note--In written statement filed in rent petition relationship of landlord and tenant admitted--Tenant estopped from challenging title of landlord.; Badrinath v. Gaushala Trust Society,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 534
S.106--Termination of tenancy--Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties--Neither tenant himself nor any other witness appeared to support of his pleadings--Allegations of tenants with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant remained unrebutted--Finding of fact by Courts below that there exists a relationship of between land lord and tenant--No interference.; Badrinath v. Gaushala Trust Society,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 534
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
Injunction--Permanent injunction--Possession--Once it is proved that plaintiff were not in possession of suit property on date of filing of suit, suit for injunction not competent.; Tharu Ram v. Jatinde Singh, 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 530
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.41--Specific performance--Agreement to sell--Bonafide Purchaser--Specific stand taken by plaintiff/respondent no.1 that transaction of sale in favour of appellants was sham transaction to defeat rights of plaintiffs--It was specially pleaded that appellants are real brothers of vendor and sale deed in their favour could not affect legal of plaintiff to seek relief of specific performance--Appellant even did not claim an issue of bonafide purchasers for consideration--It cannot be said that appellants were bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.13(1) (a)--Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Right of Purchaser against person without title--Vendor neither owner nor in possession of suit land at time of agreement to sell--Whether suit for specific performance could be decreed--YES--On acquisition of title in property subsequently, vendee can enforce contract of specific performance.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh ,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.20--Bonafide transferee--Hardship--Sale deed in favour of appellants was subsequent to agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff/respondent--Cannot be said that appellants could not forsee hardship at that time, as admittedly they are real brothers of vendor--Also, cannot be said that appellants had no knowledge of agreement to sell--Plea of bonafide purchaser not raised either before learned trial Court or learned lower appellate Court though specifically impleaded as party on averment that transaction of sale in their favour was a sham transaction to defeat right of plaintiff/respondent--No ground to deny specific performance in terms of Section 20.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.34--Permanent injunction--Appellant filed suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in intended construction sought to be raised on first floor of tenanted premises--Respondent specifically pleaded that roof was part of tenanted premises--Held, that a party who pleads a fact is required to prove same by adducing cogent evidence--Respondent failed to discharge their onus which was specifically on them--No evidence to establish that roof was part of their tenancy--Besides, shops are divided into two blocks of four each with stair case in middle and its roof was part of tenanted premises then in that eventuality user of same would have been trespassing on premises in possession of other tenant which could never have intention of tenancy so cheated in favour of respondent--Apart in Civil Revision findings of Rent controller and Appellate Authority with regard to fact that roof was not part of tenanted premises were not to be disturbed.; Manjit Kaur v. M/S Punjab Sales Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 496
Injunction--Permanent injunction--Possession--Once it is proved that plaintiff were not in possession of suit property on date of filing of suit, suit for injunction not competent.; Tharu Ram v. Jatinde Singh, 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 530
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.41--Specific performance--Agreement to sell--Bonafide Purchaser--Specific stand taken by plaintiff/respondent no.1 that transaction of sale in favour of appellants was sham transaction to defeat rights of plaintiffs--It was specially pleaded that appellants are real brothers of vendor and sale deed in their favour could not affect legal of plaintiff to seek relief of specific performance--Appellant even did not claim an issue of bonafide purchasers for consideration--It cannot be said that appellants were bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.13(1) (a)--Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Right of Purchaser against person without title--Vendor neither owner nor in possession of suit land at time of agreement to sell--Whether suit for specific performance could be decreed--YES--On acquisition of title in property subsequently, vendee can enforce contract of specific performance.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh ,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.20--Bonafide transferee--Hardship--Sale deed in favour of appellants was subsequent to agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff/respondent--Cannot be said that appellants could not forsee hardship at that time, as admittedly they are real brothers of vendor--Also, cannot be said that appellants had no knowledge of agreement to sell--Plea of bonafide purchaser not raised either before learned trial Court or learned lower appellate Court though specifically impleaded as party on averment that transaction of sale in their favour was a sham transaction to defeat right of plaintiff/respondent--No ground to deny specific performance in terms of Section 20.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.34--Permanent injunction--Appellant filed suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in intended construction sought to be raised on first floor of tenanted premises--Respondent specifically pleaded that roof was part of tenanted premises--Held, that a party who pleads a fact is required to prove same by adducing cogent evidence--Respondent failed to discharge their onus which was specifically on them--No evidence to establish that roof was part of their tenancy--Besides, shops are divided into two blocks of four each with stair case in middle and its roof was part of tenanted premises then in that eventuality user of same would have been trespassing on premises in possession of other tenant which could never have intention of tenancy so cheated in favour of respondent--Apart in Civil Revision findings of Rent controller and Appellate Authority with regard to fact that roof was not part of tenanted premises were not to be disturbed.; Manjit Kaur v. M/S Punjab Sales Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 496
PUNJAB PRE-EMPTION ACT, 1913
PUNJAB PRE-EMPTION ACT, 1913
Pre-emption--It is essential for the plaintiff in a suit of pre-emption to prove his tenancy on the date of sale and does not lay down that even if in the absence of proof of tenancy decree is required to be passed merely on the basis of possession.; Chhelu Ram v. Dan Singh.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 521
Suit for pre-emption--In order to succeed in suit for pre-emption the pre-emptor has to prove his right at the time of filing of the suit and then during the period of suit and thereafter, till passing of the decree by the trial court--It is not possible for the pre-emptor to seek pre-emption by perfecting his right of pre-emption after decree is passed by the Civil Court--If on the date of decree, right of pre-emption is not available, the same cannot be perfected subsequently.; Chhelu Ram v. Dan Singh & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 521
S.15(1)--Right of Pre-emption--On date of sale revenue entries showed vendor to be owner in possession of suit land--Basis to claim tenancy by the appellant was only on the order passed subsequent to the sale--Deposit of rent is also subsequent to the sale and there was no evidence, whatsoever, prior to the sale--Plaintiff not entitled for decree for possession by way of pre-emption.; Chhelu Ram v. Dan Singh & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 521
Pre-emption--It is essential for the plaintiff in a suit of pre-emption to prove his tenancy on the date of sale and does not lay down that even if in the absence of proof of tenancy decree is required to be passed merely on the basis of possession.; Chhelu Ram v. Dan Singh.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 521
Suit for pre-emption--In order to succeed in suit for pre-emption the pre-emptor has to prove his right at the time of filing of the suit and then during the period of suit and thereafter, till passing of the decree by the trial court--It is not possible for the pre-emptor to seek pre-emption by perfecting his right of pre-emption after decree is passed by the Civil Court--If on the date of decree, right of pre-emption is not available, the same cannot be perfected subsequently.; Chhelu Ram v. Dan Singh & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 521
S.15(1)--Right of Pre-emption--On date of sale revenue entries showed vendor to be owner in possession of suit land--Basis to claim tenancy by the appellant was only on the order passed subsequent to the sale--Deposit of rent is also subsequent to the sale and there was no evidence, whatsoever, prior to the sale--Plaintiff not entitled for decree for possession by way of pre-emption.; Chhelu Ram v. Dan Singh & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 521
PUNJAB LAND REVENUE ACT, 1887
PUNJAB LAND REVENUE ACT, 1887
S.111--Partition--Denovo Partition--Mode of partition settled--Naksha Zeem was called for--No need to remand matter for denovo partition.; Jeet Singh & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals – II, Punjab and others,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 550
S.111--Partition--Withdrawal from--Mode of partition sanctioned after hearing both parties--‘Naksha Be’ also approved by Assistant Collector--Thereafter application for withdrawal of partition on ground that 6 Bighas and 15 Marlas of land was not included in partition--Not proper--No appeal filed against confirmation of ‘Naksha Be’--After confirmation of mode of partition appellants cannot be permitted to withdraw from partition--Order of FC remanding matter for denovo partition rightly set aside.; Jeet Singh & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals – II, Punjab and others,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 550
S.111--Partition--Denovo Partition--Mode of partition settled--Naksha Zeem was called for--No need to remand matter for denovo partition.; Jeet Singh & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals – II, Punjab and others,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 550
S.111--Partition--Withdrawal from--Mode of partition sanctioned after hearing both parties--‘Naksha Be’ also approved by Assistant Collector--Thereafter application for withdrawal of partition on ground that 6 Bighas and 15 Marlas of land was not included in partition--Not proper--No appeal filed against confirmation of ‘Naksha Be’--After confirmation of mode of partition appellants cannot be permitted to withdraw from partition--Order of FC remanding matter for denovo partition rightly set aside.; Jeet Singh & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals – II, Punjab and others,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 550
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
S.7 r/w 13--Illegal gratification--Acquittal--Case of complainant that as he wanted to raise unauthorized construction bribe was accepted by accused District Town Planner--Bribe money was taken in sweet box at time of raid--In these circumstances plea taken by accused that she was handed over sweet box on pretext that it was parsad appears to be probable--On finding money in sweet box accused threw box and consequently by phenolphthalein powder which was applied on currency notice came on hands of accused were washed in a solution of sodium bicarbonate colour of solution turned pink--Moreover, possibility of handing over tainted money to accused to get her falsely involved in the case cannot be ruled out--No interference in order of acquittal called for. ; State of Haryana v. Ms.Mandalsa Rani,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 546
S.7 r/w 13--Illegal gratification--Acquittal--Case of complainant that as he wanted to raise unauthorized construction bribe was accepted by accused District Town Planner--Bribe money was taken in sweet box at time of raid--In these circumstances plea taken by accused that she was handed over sweet box on pretext that it was parsad appears to be probable--On finding money in sweet box accused threw box and consequently by phenolphthalein powder which was applied on currency notice came on hands of accused were washed in a solution of sodium bicarbonate colour of solution turned pink--Moreover, possibility of handing over tainted money to accused to get her falsely involved in the case cannot be ruled out--No interference in order of acquittal called for. ; State of Haryana v. Ms.Mandalsa Rani,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 546
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
S.25-F--Retrenchment--Workman had worked for a period of more than 240 days within 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination, and in view of non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, he was entitled to reinstatement--Instead of regularization of services, the appellant’s services as Mali terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation--Appellant made reference before Labour Court--Labour Court concluded that the workman worked for a period of more than 240 days preceding the date of termination, thus directed reinstatement--High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court--Appeal--Appellant worked for 3 years without break during his service tenure--No reason given for his termination--Termination in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F--High Court ought not to have interfered with the factual finding rendered by the Labour Court--Impugned order of the High Court set aside and that of the Labour Court restored.; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 487 (SC)
S.25-F--Retrenchment--Workman had worked for a period of more than 240 days within 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination, and in view of non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act, he was entitled to reinstatement--Instead of regularization of services, the appellant’s services as Mali terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation--Appellant made reference before Labour Court--Labour Court concluded that the workman worked for a period of more than 240 days preceding the date of termination, thus directed reinstatement--High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court--Appeal--Appellant worked for 3 years without break during his service tenure--No reason given for his termination--Termination in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F--High Court ought not to have interfered with the factual finding rendered by the Labour Court--Impugned order of the High Court set aside and that of the Labour Court restored.; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 487 (SC)
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
S.300, 304--Murder--Conviction--Culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Deceased was an alcoholic and to meet his expenses sold land measuring 2½ acres and agreed to sell remaining land--On coming to know this there was heated exchange of arguments between deceased and his accused son--In that heat of moment accused inflicted injuries with ghotna to deceased on his head and legs resulting into his death--With passage of time both eyewitnesses, wife and daughter-in-law of deceased turned hostile--But both of them sufficiently explained genesis of occurrence--No illegality in judgment of trial Court holding death of deceased took place at hands of accused--However, in view of nature of weapon i.e. wooden ghotna and single blow on head of deceased which resulted in haemotama accused cannot be held guilty of offence covered under definition of murder given in Section 300 IPC--Accused is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in view of exception 4 to Section 300 punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC--Sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him modified to that of already undergone.; Kulwant Singh @ Kanti v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 518
S.302--Murder--Eye Witness--Mere fact that witnesses have not removed deceased from place of occurrence for purpose of treatment to hospital does not warrant any adverse inference.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Acquittal--Accused not linked with other accused either by relation or otherwise--He said to be in possession of gandhali, but no such weapon recovered from him--No penetrating wound caused by gandhali--Keeping in view the fact that he is resident of village which is 50 kms away from place of occurrence, his involvement in commission of crime, is doubtful--He is acquitted of all charges framed granting benefit of doubt.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Conviction--Eye witness--Reliance on--Occurrence took place at night in fields--Though witnesses and deceased were in fields for purpose of irrigation but at the time of incident deceased or witnesses were not actually involved in process of irrigation--PW-6 called deceased and his son to bring cot--PW-6 and father of deceased are proved to be members of joint family--Land also owned jointly--Process of irrigation cannot be carried out by single person and assistance of family member is required--Therefore presence of witness for purpose of irrigation in middle of night is expected--Moreover, electricity is supplied on rotational basis particularly for purposes of irrigation during night hours--Deceased died on a account of injuries received therefore he was not removed to hospital more than 20 kms away during night--Mere fact that witnesses have not removed deceased from place of occurrence for purpose of treatment to hospital does not warrant any adverse inference.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Conviction--Motive--Prosecution proved motive as propounded against accused ‘B’ and ‘J’ whose grand father was accused of theft of eucalyptus trees in which father of deceased was witness--Eye witness, uncle of deceased, supported prosecution case in its entirety--Statement of PW-7 also similar--Thus motive as propounded by prosecution proved.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Conviction--Prosecution proved not only motive of assailants but on basis of eye witness account, able to connect appellants with crime--Conviction upheld.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.307/34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.324/34--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Injuries caused to brother of complainant--Elder brother of accused was having matrimonial dispute with sister of complaintant--Occurrence had taken place on 6.12.1995 at 11.30 A.M.--Statement of complainant recorded at Medical College Rohtak at 10.00 P.M.--Injured was taken from Dadri to Rohtak which was 90 K.M. away--First anxiety of complainant was to provide medical care to injured brother--Very nature of injuries suffered rule out any false complication--Both accused young lads facing trial for 14 year could not comprehend consequences of their act--Therefore, sentence awarded on appellant reduced from five years to three years for offence under Section 307--Appellant ‘V’ caused no injury his sentence reduced from five years to 3 years RI for offence under S.307/34.; Vijay Kumar alias Dhariya & Anr. v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 516
S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Arms Act, 1959, S.25 and 27--Attempt to murder--Bail--Murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510
S.324/34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307/34—Hurt--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Injuries caused to brother of complainant--Elder brother of accused was having matrimonial dispute with sister of complainant--Occurrence had taken place on 6.12.1995 at 11.30 A.M.--Statement of complainant recorded at Medical College Rohtak at 10.00 P.M.--Injured was taken from Dadri to Rohtak which was 90 K.M. away--First anxiety of complainant was to provide medical care to injured brother--Very nature of injuries suffered rule out any false complication--Both accused young lads facing trial for 14 year could not comprehend consequences of their act--Therefore, sentence awarded on appellant reduced from five years to three years for offence under Section 307--Appellant ‘V’ caused no injury his sentence reduced from five years to 3 years RI for offence under S.307/34.; Vijay Kumar alias Dhariya & Anr. v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 516
S.406--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482—Dowry Article—Quashing of Complaint--Dowry article/istridhan given by parents to in-laws of deceased daughter at time of marriage of his daughter became her property--Daughter survived by her son living with her in-laws--Son of deceased daughter will be entitled to inherit property of her mother--Moreover, in-laws of deceased daughter already facing trial under Section 304-B IPC--They cannot be now again put to trial for offence under Section 406--Summoning order quashed.; Sanjeev & Ors. v. Sher Singh,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 538
S.406 and 420--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.439--Immigration Act, S.10--Cheating--Bail--Complainant spent Rs.7,22,000/- for sending his son aboard but boy returned to India even before expiry of six months--Petitioners who allegedly were in custody since 26.2.2009, 20.6.2009 and 27.6.2009 respectively--Challan in case has been filed on 13.10.2009--No prosecution witness examined till date--Trial likely to take time--Keeping in view facts and circumstances petitioners entitled to bail.; Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 494
S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.202--Quashing--Complaint--Summoning of accused--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.420, 120-B and 426--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 203--Fraud--Second Complaint--Complaint that appellants who own and possess his own house came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent--It was alleged that the respondent an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land for and on behalf of the appellants--Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres--Various sale deeds were executed and registered and respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly--Fraud was thus played on the respondent by the appellants and when the respondent realized the same he filed a complaint--Police failed to take any step, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate--Challenging the order of the Magistrate, a revision petition was filed in the High Court--Revision petition was also dismissed--Whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal--Held; No--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable--Second complaint not covered within exceptional circumstances--High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent--Appeal allowed. ; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.420, 120-B and 426--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 203--Fraud--Second Complaint--Maintainability of--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.420, 120-B and 426--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 203--Fraud--Second Complaint--An order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant cannot file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 420--Immigration Act, S.10--Bail--Cheating--Complainant spent Rs.7,22,000/- for sending his son aboard but boy returned to India even before expiry of six months--Petitioners who allegedly were in custody since 26.2.2009, 20.6.2009 and 27.6.2009 respectively--Challan in case has been filed on 13.10.2009--No prosecution witness examined till date--Trial likely to take time--Keeping in view facts and circumstances petitioners entitled to bail.; Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 494
S.300, 304--Murder--Conviction--Culpable homicide not amounting to murder--Deceased was an alcoholic and to meet his expenses sold land measuring 2½ acres and agreed to sell remaining land--On coming to know this there was heated exchange of arguments between deceased and his accused son--In that heat of moment accused inflicted injuries with ghotna to deceased on his head and legs resulting into his death--With passage of time both eyewitnesses, wife and daughter-in-law of deceased turned hostile--But both of them sufficiently explained genesis of occurrence--No illegality in judgment of trial Court holding death of deceased took place at hands of accused--However, in view of nature of weapon i.e. wooden ghotna and single blow on head of deceased which resulted in haemotama accused cannot be held guilty of offence covered under definition of murder given in Section 300 IPC--Accused is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in view of exception 4 to Section 300 punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC--Sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him modified to that of already undergone.; Kulwant Singh @ Kanti v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 518
S.302--Murder--Eye Witness--Mere fact that witnesses have not removed deceased from place of occurrence for purpose of treatment to hospital does not warrant any adverse inference.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Acquittal--Accused not linked with other accused either by relation or otherwise--He said to be in possession of gandhali, but no such weapon recovered from him--No penetrating wound caused by gandhali--Keeping in view the fact that he is resident of village which is 50 kms away from place of occurrence, his involvement in commission of crime, is doubtful--He is acquitted of all charges framed granting benefit of doubt.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Conviction--Eye witness--Reliance on--Occurrence took place at night in fields--Though witnesses and deceased were in fields for purpose of irrigation but at the time of incident deceased or witnesses were not actually involved in process of irrigation--PW-6 called deceased and his son to bring cot--PW-6 and father of deceased are proved to be members of joint family--Land also owned jointly--Process of irrigation cannot be carried out by single person and assistance of family member is required--Therefore presence of witness for purpose of irrigation in middle of night is expected--Moreover, electricity is supplied on rotational basis particularly for purposes of irrigation during night hours--Deceased died on a account of injuries received therefore he was not removed to hospital more than 20 kms away during night--Mere fact that witnesses have not removed deceased from place of occurrence for purpose of treatment to hospital does not warrant any adverse inference.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Conviction--Motive--Prosecution proved motive as propounded against accused ‘B’ and ‘J’ whose grand father was accused of theft of eucalyptus trees in which father of deceased was witness--Eye witness, uncle of deceased, supported prosecution case in its entirety--Statement of PW-7 also similar--Thus motive as propounded by prosecution proved.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.302 & 34--Murder--Conviction--Prosecution proved not only motive of assailants but on basis of eye witness account, able to connect appellants with crime--Conviction upheld.; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 498
S.307/34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.324/34--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Injuries caused to brother of complainant--Elder brother of accused was having matrimonial dispute with sister of complaintant--Occurrence had taken place on 6.12.1995 at 11.30 A.M.--Statement of complainant recorded at Medical College Rohtak at 10.00 P.M.--Injured was taken from Dadri to Rohtak which was 90 K.M. away--First anxiety of complainant was to provide medical care to injured brother--Very nature of injuries suffered rule out any false complication--Both accused young lads facing trial for 14 year could not comprehend consequences of their act--Therefore, sentence awarded on appellant reduced from five years to three years for offence under Section 307--Appellant ‘V’ caused no injury his sentence reduced from five years to 3 years RI for offence under S.307/34.; Vijay Kumar alias Dhariya & Anr. v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 516
S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439--Arms Act, 1959, S.25 and 27--Attempt to murder--Bail--Murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510
S.324/34--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307/34—Hurt--Attempt to murder--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Injuries caused to brother of complainant--Elder brother of accused was having matrimonial dispute with sister of complainant--Occurrence had taken place on 6.12.1995 at 11.30 A.M.--Statement of complainant recorded at Medical College Rohtak at 10.00 P.M.--Injured was taken from Dadri to Rohtak which was 90 K.M. away--First anxiety of complainant was to provide medical care to injured brother--Very nature of injuries suffered rule out any false complication--Both accused young lads facing trial for 14 year could not comprehend consequences of their act--Therefore, sentence awarded on appellant reduced from five years to three years for offence under Section 307--Appellant ‘V’ caused no injury his sentence reduced from five years to 3 years RI for offence under S.307/34.; Vijay Kumar alias Dhariya & Anr. v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 516
S.406--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482—Dowry Article—Quashing of Complaint--Dowry article/istridhan given by parents to in-laws of deceased daughter at time of marriage of his daughter became her property--Daughter survived by her son living with her in-laws--Son of deceased daughter will be entitled to inherit property of her mother--Moreover, in-laws of deceased daughter already facing trial under Section 304-B IPC--They cannot be now again put to trial for offence under Section 406--Summoning order quashed.; Sanjeev & Ors. v. Sher Singh,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 538
S.406 and 420--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.439--Immigration Act, S.10--Cheating--Bail--Complainant spent Rs.7,22,000/- for sending his son aboard but boy returned to India even before expiry of six months--Petitioners who allegedly were in custody since 26.2.2009, 20.6.2009 and 27.6.2009 respectively--Challan in case has been filed on 13.10.2009--No prosecution witness examined till date--Trial likely to take time--Keeping in view facts and circumstances petitioners entitled to bail.; Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 494
S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.202--Quashing--Complaint--Summoning of accused--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.420, 120-B and 426--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 203--Fraud--Second Complaint--Complaint that appellants who own and possess his own house came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent--It was alleged that the respondent an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land for and on behalf of the appellants--Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres--Various sale deeds were executed and registered and respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly--Fraud was thus played on the respondent by the appellants and when the respondent realized the same he filed a complaint--Police failed to take any step, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate--Challenging the order of the Magistrate, a revision petition was filed in the High Court--Revision petition was also dismissed--Whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal--Held; No--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable--Second complaint not covered within exceptional circumstances--High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent--Appeal allowed. ; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.420, 120-B and 426--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 203--Fraud--Second Complaint--Maintainability of--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.420, 120-B and 426--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 203--Fraud--Second Complaint--An order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant cannot file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 420--Immigration Act, S.10--Bail--Cheating--Complainant spent Rs.7,22,000/- for sending his son aboard but boy returned to India even before expiry of six months--Petitioners who allegedly were in custody since 26.2.2009, 20.6.2009 and 27.6.2009 respectively--Challan in case has been filed on 13.10.2009--No prosecution witness examined till date--Trial likely to take time--Keeping in view facts and circumstances petitioners entitled to bail.; Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 494
IMMIGRATION ACT
IMMIGRATION ACT
S.10--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 420--Cheating--Bail--Complainant spent Rs.7,22,000/- for sending his son aboard but boy returned to India even before expiry of six months--Petitioners who allegedly were in custody since 26.2.2009, 20.6.2009 and 27.6.2009 respectively--Challan in case has been filed on 13.10.2009--No prosecution witness examined till date--Trial likely to take time--Keeping in view facts and circumstances petitioners entitled to bail.; Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 494
S.10--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 420--Cheating--Bail--Complainant spent Rs.7,22,000/- for sending his son aboard but boy returned to India even before expiry of six months--Petitioners who allegedly were in custody since 26.2.2009, 20.6.2009 and 27.6.2009 respectively--Challan in case has been filed on 13.10.2009--No prosecution witness examined till date--Trial likely to take time--Keeping in view facts and circumstances petitioners entitled to bail.; Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 494
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
S.202--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Summoning of accused--Quashing--Complaint--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Fraud--Second Complaint--Maintainability of--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--Complaint that appellants who own and possess his own house came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent--It was alleged that the respondent an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land for and on behalf of the appellants--Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres--Various sale deeds were executed and registered and respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly--Fraud was thus played on the respondent by the appellants and when the respondent realized the same he filed a complaint--Police failed to take any step, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate--Challenging the order of the Magistrate, a revision petition was filed in the High Court--Revision petition was also dismissed--Whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal--Held; No--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable--Second complaint not covered within exceptional circumstances--High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent--Appeal allowed. ; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--An order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant cannot file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.319--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Additional accused--summoning of--Pre-arrest bail--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.438--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319--Pre-arrest bail--Additional accused--summoning of--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Arms Act, 1959, S.25 and 27--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510
S.482--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.202--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Quashing--Complaint--Summoning of accused--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406—Quashing of Complaint--Dowry article/istridhan given by parents to in-laws of deceased daughter at time of marriage of his daughter became her property--Daughter survived by her son living with her in-laws--Son of deceased daughter will be entitled to inherit property of her mother--Moreover, in-laws of deceased daughter already facing trial under Section 304-B IPC--They cannot be now again put to trial for offence under Section 406--Summoning order quashed.; Sanjeev & Ors. v. Sher Singh,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 538
S.202--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Summoning of accused--Quashing--Complaint--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Fraud--Second Complaint--Maintainability of--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--Complaint that appellants who own and possess his own house came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent--It was alleged that the respondent an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land for and on behalf of the appellants--Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres--Various sale deeds were executed and registered and respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly--Fraud was thus played on the respondent by the appellants and when the respondent realized the same he filed a complaint--Police failed to take any step, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate--Challenging the order of the Magistrate, a revision petition was filed in the High Court--Revision petition was also dismissed--Whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal--Held; No--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable--Second complaint not covered within exceptional circumstances--High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent--Appeal allowed. ; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--An order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant cannot file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.319--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Additional accused--summoning of--Pre-arrest bail--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.438--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319--Pre-arrest bail--Additional accused--summoning of--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Arms Act, 1959, S.25 and 27--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510
S.482--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.202--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Quashing--Complaint--Summoning of accused--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406—Quashing of Complaint--Dowry article/istridhan given by parents to in-laws of deceased daughter at time of marriage of his daughter became her property--Daughter survived by her son living with her in-laws--Son of deceased daughter will be entitled to inherit property of her mother--Moreover, in-laws of deceased daughter already facing trial under Section 304-B IPC--They cannot be now again put to trial for offence under Section 406--Summoning order quashed.; Sanjeev & Ors. v. Sher Singh,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 538
CONTRACT ACT, 1872
CONTRACT ACT, 1872
Agreement--Suit for recovery--Whether Civil Court can alter terms and conditions of agreement between parties--No--Plaintiff-sheller firm was not granted benefit of additional driage of 3% by Head Office of defendants--Civil Court not competent to grant such a benefit on ground that it had been granted to other similarly situated shellers/millers of the area--As it amounted to altering terms of agreement arrived at between parties. ; Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v. M/s Shri Hargobind Rice and General Mills, Cantt. Road, Faridkot,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 540
Agreement--Suit for recovery--Whether Civil Court can alter terms and conditions of agreement between parties--No--Plaintiff-sheller firm was not granted benefit of additional driage of 3% by Head Office of defendants--Civil Court not competent to grant such a benefit on ground that it had been granted to other similarly situated shellers/millers of the area--As it amounted to altering terms of agreement arrived at between parties. ; Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v. M/s Shri Hargobind Rice and General Mills, Cantt. Road, Faridkot,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 540
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Art.226--Allotment of flat--Cancellation of--Default in payment of 50% amount--Decision of revisional authority to extend allotment to allottee observing that allottee was a riot victim and require sympathetic consideration--Not wholly irrelevant consideration--If there had been a delay in making payment that could be compensated by award of interest.; Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 552
Art.226--Allotment of flat--Cancellation of--MIG flat--Challenge to decision of revisional authority revising decision of petitioner to cancel allotment--Held, that when allotment had not been made to some other person and property is still available and there was offer made by person and property is still available and there was offer made by allottee to take a lenient view there is no scope for High Court to intervene with such an approach made by authority who is competent to take final decision.; Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 552
Art.226--Habeas Corpus--Detention--For release of detenu ‘A’ from illegal custody of respondents--State failed to explain about whereabouts of person who was allegedly in their custody--High Court directed Sessions Judge to conduct and submit report regarding escape or dis- appearance of ‘A’--Session Judge opined that story put by petitioners as well as respondent qua dis-appearance of ‘A’ son of petitioner doubtful--Not a fit case where criminal case should be ordered to be registered against respondent--However, since ‘A’ not been recovered till date it is a fit case where petitioner are liable to be compensated--Direction to state to pay compensation of Rs.5 lacs to petitioner.; Swinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 554
Art.226--Allotment of flat--Cancellation of--Default in payment of 50% amount--Decision of revisional authority to extend allotment to allottee observing that allottee was a riot victim and require sympathetic consideration--Not wholly irrelevant consideration--If there had been a delay in making payment that could be compensated by award of interest.; Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 552
Art.226--Allotment of flat--Cancellation of--MIG flat--Challenge to decision of revisional authority revising decision of petitioner to cancel allotment--Held, that when allotment had not been made to some other person and property is still available and there was offer made by person and property is still available and there was offer made by allottee to take a lenient view there is no scope for High Court to intervene with such an approach made by authority who is competent to take final decision.; Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 552
Art.226--Habeas Corpus--Detention--For release of detenu ‘A’ from illegal custody of respondents--State failed to explain about whereabouts of person who was allegedly in their custody--High Court directed Sessions Judge to conduct and submit report regarding escape or dis- appearance of ‘A’--Session Judge opined that story put by petitioners as well as respondent qua dis-appearance of ‘A’ son of petitioner doubtful--Not a fit case where criminal case should be ordered to be registered against respondent--However, since ‘A’ not been recovered till date it is a fit case where petitioner are liable to be compensated--Direction to state to pay compensation of Rs.5 lacs to petitioner.; Swinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 554
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)