Munnu Vs. State of Uttaranchal

Munnu vs State of Uttaranchal

Type Court Judgment Court Uttaranchal Decided Apr 05, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/902536

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/902536
Court: Uttaranchal High Court
Judge: Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Decided On: Apr 05, 2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MINING Direction to State Government to consider all applications afresh in light of interpretation of Section 11 of the Act and Rules 35, 59 and 60 of MC Rules Main issue : Whether the State Government's recommendation dated 06.12.2004 and the proceedings of the Chief Minister are contrary to the provisions of...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Munnu

Respondent

State of Uttaranchal

Excerpt

.....dated 15.03.2003.[para 42] d) whether rule 35 of the mc rules justify the recommendation of the state government in favour of the respondents-jindal and kalyani -- as discussed above, rule 35 only permits the state government to take additional factor of the "end use" of the minerals and not the existing investments made by the applicants. moreover, relying on the existing investments made, the respondents also does not satisfy the requirements under section 11(3)(d) which talks solely about proposed investments to be made and not the existing ones.[para 44] e) whether the criterion of "captive consumption" referred to in tata iron and steel co. ltd. vs. union of india, (1996) 9 scc 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in section 11 (3) of the mmdr act or rule 35 of the mc rules -- we have already held that section 11(3) specifies the matter relevant for purposes of second proviso to section 11(2). we also referred to the committee's report. in accordance with the recommendation in the said report, section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of section 11 in the year 1999. sub-section (d) provides that "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals" and it speaks about investment proposed to be made and not past investments. thus it confines the concept of "captive consumption of minerals to proposed investment and not past investments". even the residuary clauses in section 11(3)(e) are limited to "matters as may be prescribed", which would necessarily mean matters prescribed by rules. this is fortified by decision of this court in bsnl ltd. & anr. vs. bpl mobile cellular ltd. & ors., (2008) 13 scc 597, para 45.[para 35] f) whether factors such as the past commitments by the state government to applicants who have already set up steel plants, matter for consideration for grant of lease despite the mmdr act and the mc rules constituting a..........this revision.4. having gone through the oral testimony of the complainant, which is supported by the medical evidence, on record, this court does not find any error of law, committed by the trial court in convicting the accused/revisionist on the charge of offence punishable under section 429 i.p.c. however, on the point of sentence, learned counsel for the revisionist, pleaded that section 429 of i.p.c., provides maximum sentence of imprisonment for five years or fine or with both. it is argued that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and nature of offence, the magistrate should have released the convict (revisionist) on probation, on executing bond to keep his conduct good. however, this court is of the view that considering the fact that the cow got disabled after suffering the injury at the hands of the revisionist, the courts below have committed no error of law in not giving benefit of section 4 of probation of offenders act, 1958. no doubt, the convict could have been granted benefit under such section but it was the discretion of the trial court to take a decision after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. this court, is of the view that since the revisionist had been earlier arrested and released on bail, thereafter when his appeal was dismissed by the appellate court, he was again taken into custody and granted bail by this court on 06.03.2002, as such, it would meet the ends of justice if the revisionist is sentenced to period already undergone by him.5. accordingly, this revision is disposed of with the observation that the conviction of the revisionist under section 429 i.p.c. is affirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

Full Judgment

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. This revision, is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in criminal appeal No. 16 of 1999, whereby said court affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded against the revisionist-Munnu, relating to offence punishable under Section 429 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.)

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 08.11.1993, complainant Jagan Singh, lodged a First Information Report against revisionist-Munnu that he assaulted with a sharp edged weapon (GANDASA) on his cow, which caused 5 inch long incised wound on said animal. Said report was registered as crime No. 1207 of 1993, with Police Station Kashipur. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the revisionist, for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 429, 506 I.P.C. The trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur) after giving necessary copies, framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 429 and 506 I.P.C., against the accused Munnu (revisionist) to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Jagan Singh, P.W. 2 Sub-Inspector M.P. Singh, and P.W. 3 Dr. S.B. Verma. The evidence was put to the accused in reply to which he alleged the same to be false. However, no evidence in defence, appears to have been adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that charge of offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. is not proved but the charge under Section 429 of I.P.C. proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the trial court convicted accused Munnu, under Section 429 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 27.08.1999, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in criminal case No. 486 of 1994, criminal appeal No. 16 of 1999, filed by the convict, before the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Said appeal was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur. Said court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2002, affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial court. Hence this revision.

4. Having gone through the oral testimony of the complainant, which is supported by the medical evidence, on record, this Court does not find any error of law, committed by the trial court in convicting the accused/revisionist on the charge of offence punishable under Section 429 I.P.C. However, on the point of sentence, learned Counsel for the revisionist, pleaded that Section 429 of I.P.C., provides maximum sentence of imprisonment for five years or fine or with both. It is argued that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and nature of offence, the Magistrate should have released the convict (revisionist) on probation, on executing bond to keep his conduct good. However, this Court is of the view that considering the fact that the cow got disabled after suffering the injury at the hands of the revisionist, the courts below have committed no error of law in not giving benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. No doubt, the convict could have been granted benefit under such section but it was the discretion of the trial court to take a decision after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court, is of the view that since the revisionist had been earlier arrested and released on bail, thereafter when his appeal was dismissed by the appellate court, he was again taken into custody and granted bail by this Court on 06.03.2002, as such, it would meet the ends of justice if the revisionist is sentenced to period already undergone by him.

5. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of with the observation that the conviction of the revisionist under Section 429 I.P.C. is affirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

Same Court & Year Uttaranchal · 2010 Same Parties Munnu vs State of Uttaranchal Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Criminal