Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-18-1996
Reported in : AIR1997SC610; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)248; 1998(46)BLJR161; 1997CriLJ743; 1996(4)Crimes233(SC); (1997)2GLR1631; JT1997(1)SC1; RLW1997(1)SC94; 1996(9)SCALE298; (1997)1SCC416; [1996]S
..... before a magistrate without unnecessary delay and section 57 echoes clause (2) of article 22 of the constitution of india. there are some other provisions also like sections 53 54 and 167 which are aimed at affording procedural safeguards to a person arrested by the police. whenever a person dies in custody of the police, section 176 requires the magistrate to hold an enquiry into the cause of death. ..... certain aberrations here and there notwithstanding. the police powers of arrest, detention and interrogation in england were examined in depth by sir cyril philips committee-'report of a royal commission on criminal procedure' (command-papers 8092 of 1981). the report of the royal commission is, instructive. in regard to the power of arrest, the report recommended that the power to arrest without a warrant must be ..... serious matter.21. joinder kumar's case (supra) involved arrest of a practising lawyer who had been called to the police station in connection with a case under inquiry on 7.1.94. on not receiving any satisfactory account of his whereabouts the family members of the detained lawyer preferred a petitioner in the nature of habeas corpus ..... appeal was allowed and the acquittal of respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 was set aside. the respondents were convicted for various offences including the offence under section 304 part 11/34 ipc and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine ranging from rs. 20,000 to rs. 50,000. the fine was directed to be paid to the heirs of nathu .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-23-1996
Reported in : AIR1997SC1739; 1997CriLJ1508; 1997(1)SCALE95; (1997)2SCC642
ORDER1. This writ petition has its origin in a letter dated 12.4.1984 by a prisoner of Central Jail, Bangalore (one Rama Murthy) to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court making grievance about some jail matters. The letter was ordered to be treated as a writ petition and court proceedings followed which are being wound up by delivering this judgment.2. The expostulatory power had been invoked earlier also in a similar matter when Sunil Batra had written a letter to a Hon'ble Judge of this Court from Tihar Jail, Delhi. The judgments in his cases and that of Charles Sobraj are such which can be said to be beacon lights insofar as management of jails and rights of prisoners are concerned. this Court in these judgments (1) Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jail Tihar : 1978CriLJ1534 ; (2) Sinil Batra (1) v. Delhi Administration and Ors. : 1978CriLJ1741 ; and (3) Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration : 1978CriLJ1741 on being approached either through formal writ petitions or by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-20-1996
Reported in : AIR1997SC639; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)461; 1997CriLJ779; 1997(1)Crimes58(SC); (1997)2GLR1709; JT1996(11)SC638; 1996(9)SCALE447; (1997)1SCC361; [1996]Supp10SCR880
ORDERHansaria, J.1. A peep into a little grey area of the criminal law has become necessary in this appeal, as we have been called upon to decide as to whether a Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report and after appearance of the accused in pursuance of the process issued, can order of his own further investigation in the case. That such a power is available to police after submission of chargesheet is no longer debatable question in view of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 (in Chapter XII : Information to Police and their Powers to Investigate) of the CrPC, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). It is also not in dispute that before taking of cognizance under Section 190 (Part of Chapter XIV : Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings), the Magistrate may himself order investigation, as contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code. Further, in exercise of power under Section 311 finding place in Chapter XXI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-20-1996
Reported in : AIR1997SC1808; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)528; 1997(1)BLJR547; JT1997(1)SC406; (1998)9SCC238; [1996]Supp10SCR905
ORDERThomas, J.1. For Bhagelu Singh Yadav, his own residence became most devastatingly unsafe when he and his wife were gunned down by armed assailants during a summer night in the month of June, 1980. His wife Sona Devi fell down dead on the spot though Bhagelu Singh escaped death as the pellets did not injure his vital organs. But the irony of fate of his neighbour Ram Janam Rai was horrendous as he too was shot dead just because he woke up hearing the sound of commotion from his neighbourhood. Balroop Yadav (first cousin of Bhagelu Singh Yadav). His two sons (Nathuni Yadav and Chela Yadav) and his son-in-law (Chandrika Yadav) were charge-sheeted by the police on the aforesaid incident before the Sessions Court. After trial learned Sessions Judge acquitted all of them. But a Division Bench of the Patna High Court has reversed the acquittal and convicted them of murder and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. This appeal, is filed under Section 2A of the Supreme Court (Enl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-19-1996
Reported in : [1997]224ITR122(SC); JT1996(11)SC738; 1996(9)SCALE725; (1997)1SCC729; [1996]Supp10SCR467
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.:1. In these appeals preferred by the asses-sees against the decision of the Madras High Court, the words 'attributable to' occurring in Section 80-E/80-I of the Income Tax Act fall for consideration. The following question was referred to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the assessee would be entitled to relief under Section 80-E and 80-1 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 respectively on the income earned by it, from import and sale of spare parts from abroad?2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing Ashok Leyland trucks and also spare parts of those vehicles. It was also importing the spare parts from abroad and selling the same to the persons who have purchased the trucks from it. As and when the manufacture of spare parts by the assessee increased, there was a corresponding reduction in the qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-18-1996
Reported in : JT1996(11)SC175; 1996(9)SCALE388; (1997)2SCC397; [1996]Supp10SCR347
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. This appeal has been placed before this Bench pursuant to an order dated 19.4.1995 passed by a two-Judge Bench in the following terms:A decade has gone by since Pratibha Rani v, Suraj Kumar and Anr. : 1985CriLJ817 a decision by a majority of 2:1 has governed the scene. Having regard to its wider ramifications and its actual working in the last decade, we are of the view that a fresh look to the ratio in that case is necessary. We, therefore, order that this case be placed before a three-judge Bench.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated June 19, 1992 in Criminal Miscl. Case No. 44 of 1992. The admitted facts are that the appellant was married to the respondent on July 7, 1973 at Lucknow according to the Hindu rites and rituals. The parties have three children from the wedlock. It is not in dispute that there was estrangement in the marital relationship between the husband and the wife. It is the case of the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-13-1996
Reported in : 1997(1)ALD(Cri)439; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)348; 1997(2)BLJR1333; 1996(9)SCALE229; (1997)10SCC605; [1996]Supp10SCR81
Faizan Uddin, J.1. These two sets of appeals one by the informant Mahendra Rai, cousin brother of the deceased and another by the State of Bihar are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna passed in Criminal Appeal No. 272 and 307 of 1988 reversing the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I) Patna at Barh dated 20.5.1988 in Sessions Trial No. 135/1986 whereby the respondent No. 1 Mithilesh Rai was convicted under Section 302 for brutal murder of Arun Rai and sentenced to capital punishment, while the respondents 2 and 3, namely, Madan Rai and Raj Naresh Rai were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and other two co-accused, namely, Rajendra Raj and Ram Das Rai were acquitted.2. The prosecution case was that in the morning of 17.5.1985 there was some dispute and altercation between the deceased Arun Rai, a boy aged about 12 years and the accused respondent No. 2 Madan Rai on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-11-1996
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)628; AIR1997SC768; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)410; 1997CriLJ833; 1996(4)Crimes282(SC); JT1996(11)SC218; RLW1997(1)SC73; 1996(9)SCALE258; (1997)4SCC161; [1996]Supp9SCR938
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. A young housewife (Kanta Devi) enceinte by four months, was shot at with a double barrel gun by an assailant who gate crashed into her courtyard during the odd hours of the night when she was sleeping. The shoal of pellets spewed out of the mouth of the gun had pierced into her lungs and heart and she died instantaneously. Appellant - an ex-army man - was challaned by the police for the said murder. Sessions Court acquitted him but a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, on appeal by the State, convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He has filed this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 1970 and also under Section 379 of the CrPC.2. The following is the story which prosecution has unfurled in the Trial Court:Kanta Devi (aged 21) was married to Puran Chand and she was living with her in-laws in her husband's house at Bhali village. Her husband w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-10-1996
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)635; AIR1997SC1048; JT1996(11)SC725; 1996(9)SCALE281; (1997)3SCC185; 1997(1)SLJ171(SC); 1997(1)LC428(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated April 4, 1996 in Original Application No. 1621 of 1994 filed by M. Goverdhan Rao, respondent No. 1 in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant'). The matter relates to appointment on the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service.3. In 1992 the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') notified vacancies of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and invited applications for the said post. In response to the said notification the applicant submitted his application. The applicant belongs to a backward class in Group 'D' and his application was entertained as a local candidate of Zone V. Among the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector is Degree ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-02-1996
Reported in : AIR1997SC3722; 1996(9)SCALE297; (1997)1SCC479; [1996]Supp9SCR423
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Allahabad, made on May 10, 1996 in CR No. 352 of 1995. It is not necessary to narrate all the facts relating to the controversy in execution. It is now not in dispute that against the decree of the trial Court, the appeal has been filed in the High Court. The appeal is now pending. When the respondent had taken out execution of the decree of the trial Court, the respondent had also filed another Revision No. 56/95 and the High Court has granted stay on May 15, 1995 of the execution of the decree. Thereafter without knowledge, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, appears to have made a statement in the executing Court as well as in the High Court that no revision was filed against the order passed by the executing. Court. As a consequence, a direction was given in the impugned order to enforce the decree and exemplary costs were awar...
Tag this Judgment!