THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS HIMACHAL SERIES, 2017 EDITOR RAKESH KAINTHLA Director, H.P. Judicial Academy, Shimla. January, 2017 Vol. XLVII (I) Pages: HC 1 to 201 Mode of Citation : I L R 2017 (I) HP 1 Containing cases decided by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and by the Supreme Court of India And Acts, Rules and Notifications. PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH BY THE CONTROLLER, PRINTING AND STATIONERY DEPARTMENT, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-5. All Right Reserved INDIAN LAW REPORTS HIMACHAL SERIES (January, 2017) INDEX 1) Nominal Table i & ii 2) Subject Index & cases cited 1 to 14 3) Reportable Judgments 1 to 201 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i Nominal table I L R 2017 (I) HP 1 Sr. No. Title Page Number 1. Anju Bala Vs. The State of Himachal 104 Pradesh and others 2. Balle Ram Vs. State of H.P 26 3. Deep Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 157 through its Secretary (Forests) 4. Deepika Vaishnav Vs. Institute of Banking 73 Personnel Selection & others. 5. Diwan Chand Vs. State of Himachal 44 Pradesh 6. Dushyant Kumar Vs. State of Himachal 34 Pradesh & anr. 7. HPSEB & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar alias 29 Rockey 8. Kanshi Ram Vs. Saju alias Roop Lal & 39 anr. 9. Kishori Lal Vs. Mahima Devi 13 10. M/s CNG Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.B. 127 H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. 11. M/S Oswal Alloys Private Limited Vs. M/S 108 Gilvert Ispat Private Limited and others 12. Mahanti Devi Vs. Union of India & Anr. 79 13. Manohar Lal Vs. H.P. Vidhan Sabha and D.B. 121 others 14. NTPC Limited, Kol Dam Vs. Krishan 56 Chand Sharma & others 15. Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Piplo 49 and others 16. Prem Lal Vs. The Associated Cement 52 Company Ltd. and others 17. Raj Kumar & others Vs. Shakuntla Devi 178 (dead) through LRs Padam Chand and others 18. Rajeev Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, 115 Rohru & Ors. 19. Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Himachal 117 Pradesh & Ors. 20. Rajinder Singh Cahuhan Vs. State of H.P. 94 & another 21. Rajinder Singh Cahuhan Vs. State of H.P. 99 & another 22. Rishabh Kharbanda Vs. State of Himachal 85 Pradesh & Ors. ii 23. Sat Paul Vs. State of H.P. and another 64 24. Satish Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others D.B. 159 25. Savitri Devi Vs. State of Himachal 15 Pradesh & Ors. 26. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ashok D.B. 132 Kumar 27. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Bhime D.B. 189 Ram and another 28. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lal Chand 32 29. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Monika 18 Kinnar alias Priya 30. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pankaj D.B. 162 Samkadia 31. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjiv D.B. 138 Kumar 32. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suneel D.B. 150 Kumar @ Bobby 33. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suraj @ D.B. 3 Surjit Singh and another 34. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surjit D.B. 1 Singh 35. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Vikrant @ D.B. 7 Vicky 36. The Director HIMURJA Vs. Oasis Power D.B. 156 Project Private Limited and another 37. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 197 Leela Devi and others 38. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. 90 Raj Kumari & others 39. Vipul Kumar Kapadi Vs. State of 21 Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 40. Virender Singh Vs. State of H.P. and D.B. 199 others ********************************************************************************* - 1 - SUBJECT INDEX „C‟ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order 33 Rule 1- Plaintiff suffered injury on his right arm due to electrocution – the arm had to be amputated from the shoulder – plaintiff sought compensation of Rs.5 lacs- the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court- an appeal was filed, which was allowed and compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- was granted with interest @ 6% per annum – held in second appeal that the distance of 12 feet required to be maintained from the roof of the building was not maintained and electricity board was clearly negligent- the Appellate Court had rightly decreed the suit – appeal dismissed.(Para-10 to 18) Title: HPSEB & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar alias Rockey Page-29 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order 41 Rule 27- An application was filed for leadingadditional evidence by placing the order of Settlement Collector on record – held, that the order of Settlement Collector is under challenge before the Appellate Court- the suit land was found in the ownership and possession of the State during demarcation and the evidence was within the knowledge of the applicant – no application was filed to plead that matter is pending before the Settlement Collector - additional evidence cannot be filed to fill up the lacuna – application dismissed. (Para-4 to 13) Title: Rajinder Singh CahuhanVs. State of H.P. & another Page-94 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 125- Marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized about 36 years ago – two daughters and one son were born – the petitioner fell down from a tree – her legs were fractured and she became bedridden – she was sent to the house of her brother - efforts were made to reconcile but failed - the petitioner does not have any source of income, while the respondent is earning Rs.40,000/- per month – respondent pleaded that the petitioner started misbehaving with him at the instance of her brother and son-in-law – she left the home voluntarily – Trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the petitioner- a revision was preferred, which was dismissed- held, that Medical Officer proved the disability of the petitioner- she is residing with her brother- the income of the respondent was taken as Rs.14,000/- per month and the maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month is reasonable – petition dismissed. (Para-6 to 10) Title: Kishori Lal Vs. Mahima Devi Page-13 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 321- An application for withdrawal of the case was filed on the ground that matter has been compromised- the application was dismissed by the Trial Court- held, that if quashing of FIR is necessary for securing the ends of justice Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure will not be a bar - where the matter has been compromised, continuation of the proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the Court – petition allowed and the proceedings pending before CJM, Nahan ordered to be quashed. (Para-6 to 10) Title: Vipul Kumar Kapadi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Page-21 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 378- Informant and other persons were sitting around the fire – accused came and pushed the informant into the fire causing hurt to him, when the informant came out of the fire, the accused pushed the informant from the danga – the accused was tried and convicted by the Trial Court- an appeal was preferred, which was allowed and the accused was acquitted- held in appeal that the informant was in a state of intoxication and possibility of his sustaining injuries cannot be ruled out – weapon of offence was not recovered – the delay in lodging FIR was not explained – eye-witnesses had contradicted the prosecution version– the Appellate Court had rightly acquitted the accused – appeal dismissed. (Para-7 to 14) Title: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lal Chand Page-32 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 427- Petitioner was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- - he was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 452, 323 and 506 of I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment - 2 - for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each- the petitioner was also convicted of the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life –conviction for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C was altered to the commission of offence punishable under Section 304(I) of I.P.C– sentence was modified to the imprisonment already undergone – petitioner was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each –the petitioner was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 8/9 of H.P. Good Prisoners (TR) Act, 1968 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year – the petitioner applied for the release but the application was rejected – held, that the date on which the petitioner was convicted of the commission of three out of four sentences was subsequent to imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life – the petitioner had undergone sentences in all the three convictions before the sentence of life imprisonment was modified by the Court – the further detention of the petitioner is not justified and petitioner ordered to be released, unless required in any other case not mentioned in the petition. (Para-11 to 16) Title: Satish Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others (D.B.) Page-159 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. – a petition for quashing the FIR filed on the ground that matter has been compromised between the parties and FIR be quashed- held, that if quashing of FIR becomes necessary for securing the ends of justice , Section 320 will not be a bar for the same - when the matter has been compromised amicably without any pressure, the FIR can be quashed – petition allowed, FIR and consequent proceedings ordered to be quashed.