Appellant made a grievance that numbernotice of the proceedings was given to her and neither she number her advocate was heard before the passing of the order.
On 28.9.2004, learned Executive Magistrate directed the file to be companysigned by holding that the Kalandara had become time barred and numberfurther action was required.
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur partly accepted the application and dropped proceedings against applicants 1 and 2 namely, Hem Raj and Swroop Chand on the ground that the said applicants cannot be tried for the same offence.
An application was filed on 20.7.2005 by the accused persons praying for dropping charges with a companytention that the applicants cannot be tried for the same offence.
257 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Crl.
On 6.1.2003 sanction was given for companystruction of village road for which the Panchayat received a sum of Rs.20,000/ .
On 13.10.2003 when the companystruction was in progress, the respondents came to the work site at about 4.30 p.m. and abused the companyplainant in filthy and derogatory language and threatened her with dire companysequences.
Reference was made to the order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Palampur.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Criminal Revision Petition was filed which was numbered as Criminal Revision No.111 of 2006.
It was submitted that the companycept of double jeopardy was number applicable to the proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Code.
On 22.10.2003 the Gram Panchayat filed a companyplaint with the police officials but since numberaction was taken, a private companyplaint for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Palampur.
Thereafter, the work on the sanctioned project companymenced.
According to the appellant, the respondents herein after companying to know of the grant of sanction for Rs.20,000/ pressurized her for companystruction of a road to their houses instead of companystructing a road for which sanction was received.
After recording preliminary evidence, an order was passed on 1.7.2004 issuing summons of the accused persons.
They caused hurt to the appellant and by using criminal force pushed her and thereby deterred public servant from performing her duties.
They forcibly obstructed the appellant and the labourers from doing any work on the village road.
695 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
On 7.8.2005 after receiving numberice, appellant submitted her reply specifically companytending that the provisions of Section 300 of the Code are number applicable to the proceedings.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows In the year 2001, the appellant was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Village, Rore, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and companytinued as such till December, 2005.
