Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(95)DRJ577
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, upholding the conviction and sentence, imposed upon the petitioner for commission of offences under Section 39, Indian Electricity Act (hereafter 'the Act').2. The case of the prosecution was that on 25.11.1999, as per the instruction of Enforcement department of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and Executive Engineer, SET II a joint raid was allegedly conducted by the team of DVB officials at three premises including the premises No. B/I/110, Maddi Wali Gali, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. Direct theft of electricity was alleged from DVB O/H LV mains. On the basis of a joint inspection report and complaint, an FIR was registered at Police Station, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. A charge sheet was filed by the police, alleging that the petitioner and his brother had committed offences under Section 39 of the Act. Thereafter a charge was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IIIAD(Delhi)921; 2002CriLJ2178; 96(2002)DLT330; 2002(62)DRJ103
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Sub-section (1) to Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure runs as under:-154. Information in Cognizable cases - (1) Every Information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to a officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. 2. It is this particular provision which is being pressed into service by the petitioner (Sanjeev Kumar) for registration of a First Information Report pertaining to offences under Section 326, 506 Part II and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 besides Section 4 of the same Act against respondent No. 4. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1979Delhi387
ORDER S.O.265(E)/18AA/IDRA/78 - Whereas the Central Government is satisfied from the documentary and other evidence in its possession, that the persons in charge of the industrial undertaking, namely, (i) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur, (ii) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry, (iii) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini, (iv) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Maunath Bhanjan, (v) M/s. Udaipur Cotton Mills Ltd., Udaipur and (vi) M/s. Rai Bareli Textile Mills Ltd., Rae Bareli of M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Kaapur (hereinafter referred as the said industrial undertakings), have by creation of encumbrances on the assets of the said industrial undertakings, brought about a situation which has affected and is likely to further affect the production of articles manufactured or produced in the said industrial undertaking and that immediate action is necessary to prevent such a situation; NOWtherefore, in exercise of power conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 18AA of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982CriLJ64; 21(1982)DLT60
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The C.B.I. (SPE) filed a charge-sheet against the respondents, numbering five in all, under Section 120B read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that during the period April 1971 to December 1973, a large number of import licenses under 'actual user category' for importing stainless steel pipes and tubes were obtained by respondents 1 & 2 from the officer of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (GLA), New Delhi, in the name of non-existent firms viz, M/s. Anita Industries, Faridabad, M/s. Simco Industries, Ballabhgarh and M/s. Ruby Industries mostly on the basis of essentiality certificates issued by the Director of Industries, Haryana, Chandigarh, respondents 3 to 5 being the concerned officials who allegedly issued false certificates in favor of the non-existing firms. Besides that respondents 1 & 2 also obtained a large number of import licenses in the name of aforesaid non-existing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 61(1996)DLT24
Usha Mehra, J.(1) This writ petition raises a very short point as to whether Army authorities could dismiss the petitioner summarily after having initiated disciplinary proceedings against him under Sections 63 & 64-A of the India Army Act. (in short the 'Act') i.e. after leaving taken formal cognizance of the offence by recording summary of evidence. In under to answer this question the admitted facts are that the petitioner then Major was officiating as Officer Commanding from 6th August, 1983 to 6th September, 1983 in place of permanent incumbent having gone on annual leave. On 2nd September, 1983 a theft of 14,000.00 look place. This amount was the undisbursed pay of unit personnel held with the Battery Havaldar Major. Theft was alleged to have been committed by Gunner Udai Singh Along with Ex. Gunner Gian Singh Kubawat. On 5th September, 1983, Gunner Udai Singh after being tortured with third degree method confessed to have committed the theft and produced the cash hidden by him. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT770
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The appellants in the Latent Patent Appeals, the petitioner in C.W.P. 3063/95 and the petitioner in C.W.P. 4082/95 have come forward with a grievance that their services have been dispensed with by the respondents on extraneous reasons which cannot be sustained in law. They were all working at one time in 168 Infantry Brigade deployed in the place called Samba, in a border area.2. Each of the appellants and each of the petitioners has got its own case to relate which requires a careful consideration. At the outset it may be noted that the question to be decided is whether the respondents have established their case against each of the appellants and the petitioners who have approached this Court.3. The genesis of the present action was the arrest of Gnr. Aya Singh and Gnr. Sarwan Dass who were alleged to be assisting Pakistan SSI endangering the security of India. They were arrested in the year 1975 on suspicion of their being spies passing on secret information t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. By this OA applicant has challenged order dated 31.1.2007 (page 17) whereby his request for compassionate appointment has been rejected. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to give appointment of Postal Assistant to the applicant on compassionate ground with all consequential benefits in view of the recommendation made by the Circle Relaxation Committee (hereinafter referred to as CRC) and approval granted by the Chief Postmaster General UP Circle Lucknow vide letter dated 29.7.1999. More so when he has been imparted the prescribed practical and Institutional training also of 3.1/2 months and had completed all other pre-appointment formalities.2. It is submitted by the applicant that his father died in harness on 17.12.1998. He applied for compassionate appointment. CRC recommended that he should be appointed as Postal Assistant as he fulfilled the educational qualification and belonged to SC. Even Chief Post Master General (hereinafter referred to as CPMG) accorde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : I(1991)ACC507
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.1. The petitioner was found guilty of an offence under Section 279/337 I.P.C. as also under Section 304-A I.P.C. and was imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. I may note that the trial Court by its order dated 23rd of March, 1979 accepted the proposition that the petitioner is entitled to probation but did not grant it as it felt that it will amount to subjecting him to a restraint for some years. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed this order by its order dated 24th of August, 1979.2. The petitioner is challenging the legality and the propriety of the sentence as according to him any fair evaluation of the evidence recorded in this case would prove that the petitioner is not responsible for any rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of Nihal Chand deceased who was involved in this accident. In fact, Mr. Lai's attempt throughout his arguments was that the prosecution evidence particularly of P.W.1. Mr. Bhatia who is the star witness i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The petitioner joined BSF as a constable in the year 1990, and was attached to the 79th Bn. as on January 9, 1999. He was a part of “C”Coy of the battalion, which was posted at Border Out Post (BOP) Chainagar. 2. It is not in dispute that on January 9, 1999, the petitioner was assigned sentry duty at gate No.2 of the BOP from 06:30 hours to 12:00 hours. Insp.Mukund Singh, along with Ct.Ashok Kumar was patrolling the area from gate No.5 to gate No.2. The two claim that as they approached gate No.2, they took a hidden position in a nearby bamboo grove in order to detect any suspicious movement. That at around 07:30 hours, a man entered gate No.2 bringing along some goods. He was followed by another man carrying a net. A few other persons also entered. Insp.Mukund Singh and Ct.Ashok Kumar claim that they emerged from the hidden spot and started shouting “Pakro, Pakro”, whereupon the said persons, whom Insp.Mukund Singh and Ct.Ashok Kumar cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgement and decree dated 4th June, 2015 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, New Delhi of dismissal of Suit No. 424/2013 filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 12,78,470/- along with pendente lite and future interest consequent to rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC of the plaint on the ground of the relief claimed, from the averments contained therein, being barred by time. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. Considering that in the event of the appeal being allowed the suit will have to be remanded, after admitting the appeal on 10th February, 2016 it was posted for hearing for today. The counsels have been heard and the Trial Court record to the extent required perused. 3. The appellant/plaintiff on 10th December, 2013 instituted the suit from which this ...
Tag this Judgment!