Skip to content


ishar Dass Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1981CriLJ462
Appellantishar Dass
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........the offence was committed and had even intimated to the excise and taxation department from being absolved of the liability of being a licensee. it has been brought to my notice that formally by an appropriate order he is not yet absolved from being a liquor licensee. that may be so for the purpose of civil or departmental liability of the petitioner but it does take his case out for a limited purpose that could be in such a situation be a co-conspirator in the commission of the suggested offence. as at present advised, and for the purposes of this bail application, it is difficult to come to a prima facie view that having sought retirement from the partnership, he would be interested to hatch up a conspiracy for the commission of the offences involved.3. for the foregoing reasons, the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.M. Punchhi, J.

1. This petition for bail is to be allowed in view of my decision rendered today in Criminal Misc. No. 90-M of 1981 reported in 1981 Cri LJ 461 (Punj & Har.) and also for the added reason discussed below.

2. It has been contended that Ishwar Dass, a petitioner, had retired from the partnership long before the date on which the offence was committed and had even intimated to the Excise and Taxation Department from being absolved of the liability of being a licensee. It has been brought to my notice that formally by an appropriate order he is not yet absolved from being a liquor licensee. That may be so for the purpose of civil or departmental liability of the petitioner but it does take his case out for a limited purpose that could be in such a situation be a co-conspirator in the commission of the suggested offence. As at present advised, and for the purposes of this bail application, it is difficult to come to a prima facie view that having sought retirement from the partnership, he would be interested to hatch up a conspiracy for the commission of the offences involved.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is allowed bail pending investigation trial. He is ordered to be so released to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. However, nothing said herein would affect the merits of the case if put up for trial.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //