Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rajinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. police seized 97 sacks walnut bark without permit (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution presented case; accused denied guilt (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower courts convicted using witness presumption (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. parties argue evidence contradictions revision scope (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limits to patent legal errors (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. forest act presumption invalid for ipc theft (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. disclosure pointing place not section 27 discovery (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. substance needs botanical name expert proof (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. revision allowed accused acquitted charges set aside (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 7.11.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, Camp at Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 22.12.2012 and order of sentence dated 27.12.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioners (accused before the learned Tri
Presumption under Forest Act Section 69 cannot convict under IPC Section 379 without proving theft from government forest. Substance identity requires expert proof with botanical name, not mere local....
The prosecution must produce primary evidence to sustain a conviction; non-production of seized timber undermines the case.
The appellate court must tread carefully when reversing an acquittal and requires compelling evidence of error to do so, particularly when the initial trial court has established reasonable doubt.
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 is limited; no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent conviction for assaulting public servant, causing simple hurt and damaging pu....
Conviction under rash driving provisions set aside in revision for failure to prove driver's identity: no investigation explanation, no test identification parade, unreliable dock identification by p....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; lower courts erred ignoring mechanical reports' inconsistencies on vehicle damage and witness speed contradiction, creating reasonable doubt on rash dri....
Revisional court cannot reappraise evidence or interfere with concurrent conviction for assault on public servant absent perversity; official testimonies, medical evidence and cross-suggestions suffi....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; cannot re-appreciate evidence to upset concurrent convictions absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice; injured witness testimony highly rel....
The High Court affirmed that, in chance recovery cases, compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory, reinforcing the credibility of police testimony despite the absence of independent....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
