High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 12 SHI CK 0084

State of H.P. vs Swami Lal Ji Maharaj

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 27 December 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surinder Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal A No. 115 of 2006

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 333 words

Surinder Singh, J.—The respondent was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Instruments (Control of Noises) Act, 1969, in short "the Act", for allegedly operating the loud speaker after 10 p.m. in ''Kainllu Mata Ka Mandir'', New Shimla, Sector-IV, District Shimla, H.P. As a matter of fact, the Himachal Pradesh Instruments (Control of Noises) Act, 1969, came into force in such areas of Himachal Pradesh and on such dates as the Government directed by Notification in the official Gazette thus, the appreciation of the provisions of this Act in the particular areas of the State of Himachal Pradesh would depend upon the requisite statutory Notification issued under the Act by the State Government.

2.

In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, the Administrator, Himachal Pradesh was pleased to notify the enforcement of the Act to whole of the State of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 4th May, 1970. But, subsequently, another Notification was issued on 11.2.1973 modifying the earlier one, restricting the application of the provisions of this Act only in all the Municipal and Notified Areas including the Municipal Corporation areas of Shimla till further orders, meaning thereby that the said provisions of the Act shall be applicable only in the Municipalities, Notified Area of Himachal Pradesh and the Municipal area of Shimla Corporation.

3.

The evidence lacks in material particulars whether the temple in question where the loud speaker was played in high peach after 10 p.m. at the relevant date and time fell in any of such areas so as to attract the penal provisions of Section 6 of the Act. In absence of such material evidence, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused, which requires no interference in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the state is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case.