13-10-2008: Present: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, for the State. Cr.M.P. (M) No.1039 of 2008. Heard. The reasons for delay have been mentioned in paras 2 and 3 of the application which is duly supported by the affidavit of Shri Guru Lal Negi, Deputy Secretary (Home) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. This constitutes sufficient cause. According, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is concerned. Cr. Appeal No. 543 of 2008. Heard. Admit. Notice of this appeal be sent to the respondent and records of the courts below be also sent for. (Surinder Singh), J. October 13, 2008. (bm) Cr. Appeal No. 544 of 2008. 13-10-2008: Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, for the State. This jail appeal has been filed by convict-appellant from District Jail, Dharamshala through the Superintendent of that Jail. Appellant has requested to engage a counsel on his behalf to prosecute his cause and defend him in this appeal. Shri Bipin Negi, Advocate is present in the Court. His name finds mention in the list of H. P. Legal Services Authority approved by the High Court. He is ready and willing to represent the appellant at State Expenses. As such, he is appointed as an Advocate for the convict-appellant at State expenses. The application stands disposed of. Let a copy of the Paper Book of this case be supplied to Shri Bipin Negi, learned Advocate free of cost. In case, he intends to inspect the file, he be allowed to do so without any expenses. List the mater on 20.10.2008 for consideration on application for condoning the delay. A copy of this order be sent to the appellant for his information through the Superintendent of the Jail. (Surinder Singh), J. October 13,2008. (bm) Cri. Appeal No. 545 of 2008. 13-10-2008: Present: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer for the State. Cr.M.P(M) No. 1042 of 2008. This is an application for condoning the delay of fifty days in filing the appeal. The reasons for delay are mentioned in paras 2 to 4 of the application which is duly supported by the affidavit of Shri Guru Lal Negi, Deputy Secretary (Home) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. The facts mentioned in the application prima facie do constitute sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the application stands disposed of. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1043 of 2008. Heard. The respondent was tried and convicted by learned trial Court and was sentenced to under-go simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of rupees 1000/-. The respondent felt aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the judgment of conviction, filed an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge who vide his detailed judgment passed in Criminal appeal No. 29 of 2008 decided on 9.5.2008 acquitted the respondent on the ground that the original complaint of the concerned public servant (s) working in Irrigation and Public Health Department was not produced in evidence except a copy mark-A thus, it was not safe to believe the contents of Exhibit PW5/A in absence of the original complaint. Secondly, the incident was alleged to have been witnessed by Fenia Ram, Jagat Ram and Rattan Singh witnesses as per the version contained in Exhibit PW5/A but out of these witnesses, only Rattan Singh and Jagat Ram were examined. According to them, they did not witness the incident in question. Thirdly, the duty chart of the complainant was not placed on record. Even PW5 Surinder Singh, Executive Engineer, did not depose whether the complainants Roop Chand and Janak Raj, employees of the Department were put on official duty or they were duly discharging their public functions at the relevant time. Fourthly, there were material contradictions in the statements of witnesses inasmuch as snatching and throwing away their wrenches by the accused are concerned. Thus, the cumulative effect led to the conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court was un-sustainable. On examining the record, I also find that these contradictions coupled with the fact that duty chart of the aforesaid officials was not produced to prove that the said officials were in fact discharging their public functions on the day of the alleged occurrence and further, the alleged eye witnesses having not supported the case of the complainant, make the case of prosecution doubtful. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse. Accordingly, the leave to appeal is refused. The application stands disposed of. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (Surinder Singh) Judge. October 13, 2008. (bm) 13-10-2008: Present: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer for the State. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1044 of 2008. Heard. There is delay if sixty days in filing the appeal. The reasons for delay have been given in paras 2 to 5 of the application which is duly supported by the affidavit of Guru Lal Negi, Deputy Secretary (Home) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. Prima facie, there is sufficient cause to condone the delay. As such, the application is disposed of. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1045 of 2008. Heard. Leave to appeal granted. The application is disposed of . Cri appeal No. 546 of 2008. Admit. To secure the presence of respondents, they be summoned through bailable warrant in the sum of rupees 5000/- each. (Surinder Singh), J October 13, 2008. (bm) Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1000 of 2008. 13-10-2008: Present: Mr. Nresh K. Thakur, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, for the Respondent-State. The instant application has been moved by the petitioners for their pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 67 of 2008 dated 27.8.2008 registered under Sections 506, 506, 341, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Bharmour. Sanjay Kumar, co-accused, was granted bail in this case by this Court and the present petitioners have approached this Court seeking their bail. Pursuant to the interim order passed on 30.9.2008, they were directed to joint the investigation. According to learned law officer, the petitioners herein had joined the investigation of this case and the recovery of one “Grip” is alleged to have been affected from Ravinder Kumar which was allegedly used in the incident. The petitioners are college students. The investigation is stated to be almost complete. In view of this situation, the interim bail granted on 30.9.2008 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. However, it is further directed that the petitioners shall not mi-use the liberty of the bail in any manner. The application is accordingly disposed of. (Surinder Singh) Judge. October 13, 2008. (bm) 13-10-2008: Present: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer for the State. Heard in part. List on 14-10-2008. (Surinder Singh), J. October 13, 2008. (bm)