Reported in : 2009CriLJ3426; JT2009(13)SC657; 2009(7)SCALE73; (2009)6SCC706; 2009AIRSCW3868; 2009(4)LHSC2260
.....appellant also to show cause as to why the sentence shall not be enhanced.4. before, however, we consider the merit of the matter, we may notice the factual matrix involved herein.the parties are neighbours. the incident took place on 24.08.1999 at village chilkur. allegedly, pw-2, wife of the deceased while feeding her child scolded him describing him as mischievous. accused no. 2 thought that the said remarks of pw-2 were directed against her. she and her husband picked up a quarrel with pw-2. the deceased, the husband of pw- 2, came there and got himself involved in the quarrel. appellant who was inside the house came out with a scissor and stabbed the deceased.5. the learned trial judge keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, opined:hence, it won't attract the ingredients of the alleged offence under section 302 i.p.c. and it attracts the offence under section 304 part i of i.p.c.6. appellant was sentenced to undergo seven years' imprisonment. he preferred an appeal thereagainst. by reason of the impugned judgment, as noticed hereinbefore, while maintaining the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial judge under section 304, part i of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2009SC2544; 2009(3)AWC2658(SC); JT2009(8)SC392; RLW2009(4)SC3562; 2009(7)SCALE103; (2009)10SCC434; 2009(6)LC2570(SC):2009AIRSCW4441
.....the appellant, praying for an amendment of the written statement stating inter alia that there was inadvertently some confusion and misstatement of facts which needed to be rectified and that the proposed amendment was necessary for adjudication of the real matter in controversy. the amendment sought for clearly stated that there are three different portions under one tenancy and not different portions under different tenancies, which can be evident from the original written statement filed by the appellant. by filing the application for amendment of the written statement, the appellant sought deletion of the words 'under different tenancies', what was sought to be removed was the contradiction and confusion having been raised in the written statement which was never intended to be an admission. the appellant further alleged that by amendment he sought to explain and adopt a different and inconsistent plea in the written statement. however, it would be appropriate for us to reproduce the amendment prayed for which is in the following manner:4. that in para 2 of the reply the word 'under different tenancies' be deleted.5. that para 3 of the reply be substituted with the following.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2009CriLJ2963; 2009(7)SCALE60; (2009)6SCC595
.....statement can be taken into consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. where there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case if such statement discharges the onus.6. the word `generally' in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the question should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. the question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. the whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. a conviction based on the accused's failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. the whole object of enacting section 313 of the code was that the attention of the accused should.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2009)223CTR(SC)321; JT2009(11)SC151; 2009(7)SCALE341(1); (2009)12SCC209; [2009]17STJ237(SC); 2009[14]STR593; [2009]20STT203; 2009(6)LC2739(SC); (2009)24VST1(SC); 2009AIRSCW5301
.....being taken by the distributor as an agent, and retained as such, or whether the goods will be purchased outright by the distributor from the manufacturer, at a reduced price, the distributor thereafter taking all responsibility for the goods purchased, in return for, or inconsideration of, the reducing in the wholesale price of goods.if, we repeat if, the writ petitioner is a distributor or a selling agent, then there is no problem, notwithstanding section 4(c) of the 1998 act, of the writ petitioner reselling the lottery tickets in the open market even upto the full face value of rs. 100/-, or for a lesser price but above rs. 70/-, even though it bought the tickets itself for rs. 70/-. is this a promotion of the lottery marketing of lottery tickets produced or provided by the state? if it is not, then what is the difference between a person buying lottery tickets of face value of rs. 100/- at rs. 100/- from the state government directly, and a person who is buying it at a reduced price? is the reduced price of rs. 30/- in relation to goods, originally belonging to the state government, a reduction for the purpose of marketing and further sale, and is it for the purpose of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2009SC2391; 2009CriLJ2860; JT2009(11)SC268; 2009(6)SCALE739; (2009)6SCC490:2009AIRSCW3221
.....'the amending act') which has come into effect from 2.10.2001 is the question involved in this appeal.3. the said question arises in the following factual matrix.on or about 26.09.1999, one attar singh, sub-inspector received a secret information that the appellant herein would come to a place known as yamuna pusta to deliver a consignment of smack. on the basis of the said information, he sent an intimation to the asstt. commissioner of police, narcotics branch, whereupon he was directed by the station house officer to conduct a raid.at about 12.15 p.m. on the said date, allegedly, the appellant was apprehended at the given place. he is said to have been provided with an option for getting himself searched before a magistrate or a gazetted officer wherefor a notice under section 50 of the act was served. however, as he had not opted to be searched before a magistrate/gazetted officer, the appellant was searched by sub inspector atar singh.upon search of his person, 600 gms. of smack was recovered. appellant was prosecuted under section 21 of the act. he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. fine of rs. 1,00,000/- was also imposed upon him.4. appellant.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2009SC2592; 2009(4)AWC3259(SC); JT2009(6)SC313; 2009(7)SCALE9; (2009)7SCC311; 2009(6)LC2560(SC):2009AIRSCW4511
.....been taken before the first appellate court as ground no. 4. the said ground is as follows:4. that the learned lower court has totally ignored the fact that the promotion is based on merit-cum-seniority and on account of the punishment imposed and various acts of misconduct of the respondent no. 1, she had no merit to claim promotion.10. but on that ground also no finding has been reached by the first appellate court. before us one of the questions of law raised by the appellant-corporation is as follows:whether the promotion claim of respondent no. 1 only on the basis of seniority is sustainable, whereas as per the departmental promotion rules the promotion is based on merit-cum-seniority?11. the aforesaid question has not been dealt with by the courts below and even by the high court. since the said question is vitally important to the entire controversy in this case, this court remands the matter to the high court and direct the high court to re- hear the second appeal and decide the aforesaid question, namely, whether in the matters of granting promotion to respondent no. 1, the appellant-corporation has to follow the principle of merit-cum-seniority, as contended by them......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : JT2009(7)SC230; 2009(6)SCALE734
.....dragged out of the car and again attacked and he fell down on the ground and thereafter the deceased was taken to hospital is false. as a matter of fact p.w.5 and pw-6 who are eyewitness to the occurrence had stated that abbai reddy died on the spot. similarly p.w.15 would state he had taken photograph of dead body.11. coming to the evidence of pw.1, in ex.p.1, he had stated that when the car was reaching the house of deceased, a-1 was following the car in the scooter, but in evidence he had stated that al was standing there at ramakrishna mission and al and others stopped the car. though in ex.p.1, p.w.1 stated that all the eight accused attacked the deceased, in evidence p.w.1 had given special role to a-1 stating that a-1 first attacked the deceased and 5 other accused thereafter attacked the deceased. according to p.w.15, p.w.5 & p.w. 6 abbai reddy died on the spot. in ex.p.1 there is no reference about the death of deceased. in evidence p.w.1 and p.22 would state that the deceased was taken to hospital for treatment. this is false especially as p.w. 1 gave telephonic information about the murder of abbai reddy. p.w.1 in his evidence stated that he had given all the names of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2009(5)BomCR315; 2009CriLJ3454; JT2009(7)SC351; 2009(6)MhLJ274(SC); 2009(4)MPHT118(SC); 2009(7)SCALE55; (2009)6SCC72; [2009]92SCL370(SC); 2009(6)LC2588(SC):2009AIRSCW3966:2009(4)LHSC2206
.....judgment and order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the high court of delhi in criminal m.c. no. 2890 of 2007.3. the said question arises in the following factual matrix.appellant kept two blank cheques in his office along with some stamp papers. they were said to have been stolen from his office. information as regards missing of the said cheques was also given to the bank. he lodged a first information report with regard thereto, stating:.on my return to digras, i found that the cheques and the stamp worth rs. 50 bearing only my signatures had been stolen, therefore, to prevent any misuse of my cheques, i sent a written information to state bank, branch digras and subsequently on 21-04-01 i filed a complaint in police station digras....the blank cheques were allegedly filled up on 24.06.2001. they were presented before the bank but the same were returned dishonoured with the remarks 'said cheque reported lost by the drawer'.respondent no. 2 thereafter upon issuance of notices in terms of the proviso appended to section 138 of the act filed a complaint petition in the court of chief metropolitan magistrate, delhi, inter alia, alleging:5. that the above said cheque in question was.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2009(57)BLJR2938; 2009CriLJ2957; JT2009(6)SC352; 2009(4)MPHT339(SC); 2009(7)SCALE19; (2009)6SCC652; 2009(7)LC3473(SC); 2009AIRSCW3469; 2009(3)LHSC2010; 2009(4)KCCRSN260; 2009CriLJ2957
.....which is not otherwise expressly provided for, shall be recoverable as if it were a fine: provided that section 421 shall, in its application to an order under section 359, by virtue of this section, be construed as if in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 421, after the words and figures 'under section 357', the words and figures 'or an order for payment of costs under section 359' had been inserted. section 431 makes it clear that any money other than a fine payable on account of an order passed under the code shall be recoverable as if it were a fine which takes us to section 64 i.p.c.21. section 64 ipc makes it clear that while imposing a sentence of fine, the court would be competent to include a default sentence to ensure payment of the same. for the sake of reference, section 64 ipc is set out hereinbelow:64. sentence of imprisonment for non- payment of fine.--in every case, of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment,and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine,it shall be.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2009SC2426; 2009(4)BomCR27; (2009)3GLR2288(SC); JT2009(9)SC127; 2009(6)MhLJ1(SC); 2009(7)SCALE26(1); (2009)7SCC506; 2009(5)LC2303(SC):2009AIRSCW4537
.....therefore, the learned counsel have fairly conceded to remand the same to the joint charity commissioner for afresh decision irrespective of the fact that subsequent elections have been allegedly conducted and subsequent change report is pending for enquiry before the assistant charity commissioner.9. indisputably respondent nos. 6, 10 and 20 before the high court, inter alia, had not been given any notice of the said second appeal. respondent no. 6 before the high court has filed the present appeal by special leave petition. an application (i.a. no. 2 of 2008) to withdraw the special leave petition has been filed by the petitioner. on the other hand, respondent nos. 10 and 20 filed application (i.a. no. 3 of 2008) for their transposition to the category of the petitioners.we allow the application of transposition.10. mr. p.s. narasimha, and mr. uday umesh lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the transposed appellants, in support of the appeal, would contend that having regard to the subsequent events and in particular, the fact that elections had been held in the meantime, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. it was furthermore contended that as.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT