Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1904
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. In reporting this case under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that being the Code still applying in Sikkim the learned Sessions Judge has confessed his inability to understand the nature of the proceeding initiated by the lower Court, the procedure followed therefor and the provisions of law applied and invoked therein. All the learned Counsel appearing before him for the parties, including the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however submitted that the proceeding, which was initiated, purported to be under Section 145 of the Code and the learned Sessions Judge also having decided to proceed on that basis, reported the case to this Court for necessary orders, as according to him, not only the impugned order was passed in utter non-compliance with the provisions of Section 145 of the Code, but was also of a nature which could not be passed under that section.2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1983CriLJ323
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This is a revisional application by the petitioner against the order passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge directing him to make monthly allowances for the maintenance of his wife, the respondent No, 1, and his son, the respondent No. 2, on an application filed by them under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that being the Code which is still applicable in Sikkim subject to some exceptions and modifications.2. The impugned order having been passed on 25-2-81 and the present revisional application having been filed on 8-9-81, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the present revision is barred by time. The Law of Limitation in force in Sikkim, like the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (now repealed and replaced by the Limitation Act of 1063), does not prescribe any period of limitation for any revisional application, civil or criminal. But in Kinzang Dahdul V. Ransul Kharga 1978 Cri LJ 1569 at pp. 1572-1573 it has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1384
ORDERA. M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge, Gangtok, confirming the judgment passed by the District Magistrate, South Sikkim. whereby the latter has convicted the petitioner under Sections 279/337, Indian penal Code and has sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-and in defualt to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, involves only one question, very seriously pressed by Mr. B.C. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The question is whether a trial by a Court of a case which has been transferred thereto from another Court by an order of transfer passed by a Sessions Judge under Section 528(1-C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is vitiated, if the order of transfer, was passed without 'an applications made to him in this behalf' as required by the provisions of Section 528(1-C)2. The case was originally instituted in the Court of the District Magistrate. South Sikkim, who after the receipt of the charge-sheet,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 2003CriLJ2799
Ripusudan Dayal, C.J.1. All these Criminal Revisions have been filed to challenge the Order dated 15-11-2002 by the learned Special Judge, P. C. Act, Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Case No. 8/1997 ordering the framing of charge against the petitioners.2. RC-8/84-CIU-(A) was registered by SP/CBI CIU-(A), New Delhi on 7-8-1984 at 1610 hrs. against Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari, former Chief Minister of Sikkim, Shri P.K. Pradhan, the then Secretary Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, M/s. Kumar Traders, Jorethang, Sikkim and others under Section 120B, IPC read with Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The investigation resulted in the filing of the charge-sheet on 14-9-1994 by Shri G. Verma, Dry. SP/CBI/SPE/ ACU(V)/New Delhi against 17 accused persons. Two of them namely, accused No. 3 H.P. Karki and accused No. 16 Shri N. P. Bhandari died before the impugned order of charge was passed by the learned trial Court and so, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1992CriLJ843
ORDERR. Dayal, J.1. This application has been moved under Sections 561-A and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which Code is still in force in the State of Sikkim, for quashing the Order dated 9-8-1991 summoning the applicants to face a criminal charge under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (East and North) Sikkim in Criminal Misc. Case No. 26 of 1991, registered on the complaint petition by respondent No. 2.2. Messers Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd., is carrying on the business of printing and publishing various newspapers, magazines, peridicals and weeklies from various parts of the country and one of the dailies published by this Company is Nav Bharat Times. Applicant No. 1, Shri A. K. Jain, is the Chairman and Applicant No. 2, Shri Samir Jain, is the Managing Director of the Company. The criminal proceedings arose from a news item published by the Nav Bharat Times on 11-12-90 with the heading 'Dalmia Samooh ki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1391
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The appellants, having pleaded guilty to the. charges framed against them under Section 457/34 and Section 380/34 of the Penal Code by the Additional Ses sions Judge and having been convicted on such plea and sentenced to suffet rigorous imprisonment, for one year under the first charge and for two years for the second charge, have preferred this appeal,2. Under the provisions of Section 412, Criminal P. C. 1898, by which this State is still governed, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea by any Court other than that of a Magistrate of the Second or the Third Class, 'there shall be no appeal except as to the extent or legality of the sentence'. But it is by now well-settled that though ordinarily in the case of a conviction on a plea of guilty, the conviction cannot be assailed in appeal and only the sentence can be interfered with if it is excessive or illegal, yet if the facts alleged or disclosed by the prosecution in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1650
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. I have heard Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and have examined the records of the case and I am of opinion that the revisional application should be dismissed.2. The facts of the case, shorn of such details as are not necessary for the present purpose, are that on receipt of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and two others, the learned District Magistrate, without examining the complainant or his witnesses, decided, by his order dated 5th Aug., 1977, to hold enquiry and fixed 17th Aug., 1977, as the date therefor, but on the date so fixed, that is on 17th Aug., 1977, the learned District Magistrate by order transferred the case to another Magistrate for proceeding according to law. The transferee Magistrate on receipt of the complaint fixed 23rd Aug., 1977 for the examination of the complainant and his witnesses and afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2685
Malay Sengupta, Acting C.J.1. This case arises out of an application filed under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the sentence imposed on 3-6-1996 by Shri P.W. Paljor, Judicial Magistrate, East in Criminal Case No. 56 of 1995 after convicting the accused persons under Sections 380/368/471/420/34, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case was that accused Dorjee Sherpa and Ajoy Gurung were working as Typist and Peon respectively in the Department of Pension underthe Government of Sikkim. The other accused Lakpa Sherpa was a close associate of accused Dorjee Sherpa. Karma Bhutia was another associate. Shri M.B. Ruchal was the Chief Accounts Officer, Pension Section. It was alleged that all of them hatched up a plan to fraudulently withdraw cheques from Pension Section of the Finance Department and to get those cheques enacashed from different banks in Sikkim. Pursuant to the plan accused Dorjee Sherpa managed to take out letter heads and office seal of the Chief Accounts O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1981CriLJ856
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The prosecution, having failed to tender one of the witnesses for cross-examination after charge in spite of repeated opportunities, applied to the Court to summon and examine three more witnesses to prove that the whereabouts of the first-mentioned witness were no longer traceable, so that his deposition before charge could be admitted in evidence under Section 33, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Karmadhan Lama v. State of Sikkim 1979 Cri LJ 610 I have held that in a warrant-case (not instituted on a police report) an accused has an absolute right to cross-examine a prosecution witness before charge and therefore, the statement of a witness before charge can be treated as evidence, even though the witness is not and cannot be recalled for cross-examination after charge, if before charge the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine him.2. In this case, the witness concerned was in fact cross-examined by the accused before charge and therefore, according to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1580
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The petitioner, whose surety-bond executed for the appearance of an accused before Court has been forfeited and who has accordingly been called upon to pay the; penalty thereof, has come up in revision against the orders of forfeiture and imposition of penalty. The bond was taken by a Judicial Magistrate and was for appearance? in that Court, but has been forfeited by the Additional Sessions Judge, to whose Court the case of the accused was subsequently transferred for trial by an order of the Sessions Judge. The main ground urged by Mr. N. K. P. Saraf, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the petition and against the impugned orders is that the bond, having been furnished in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and being for appearance in that Court, could not be forfeited by the Additional Sessions Judge, even though the case might have been assigned to him for disposal by an order of transfer.2. The question as to whether a bond for the appearance o...
Tag this Judgment!