Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1943)2MLJ634
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 11th February, 1943, in Ordinance Case No. I of 1942, the appellants were convicted by the Special Judge of Madura on charges which will be indicated presently and sentenced to terms of imprisonment The Special Judge was appointed under the provisions of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942. On the 5th June, 1943, that Ordinance was cancelled by the Special Criminal Courts (Repeal) Ordinance, 1943, but Section 3 of the repealing Ordinance provided that a sentence already passed under the repealed Ordinance should continue to have effect as if the trial had been held in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and gave a right of appeal. These appeals have been filed under Section 3 of the later Ordinance, and have been placed before a Bench of three Judges as important questions under the Indian Evidence Act arise2. On the evening of Friday, the 23rd October, 1942, Rao Sahib Viswanathan Nayar, Circle Inspector of Police in Madura, visi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1991)1GLR226
M.B. Shah, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 69 of 1987 by the judgment and order dated 29th September, 1987 passed by the Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, the appellants-original accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months.2. Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer R.I. far life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months but they are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Accused No. 5 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries by spear to witnesses Mahammad Yamin, Abdulrazak and Mahammad Ismail and is sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1962CriLJ318
Basi Reddy, J.1. On the evening of the 28th April, 1959 at about 7 P.M. whilst one Narayans Reddy (P.W. 1) was seated on the 'plal1 outside his house in Jutur village, a bomb was hurled at him and as a result of the explosion, although he escaped death, he was seriously wounded in the leg and disabled for life. In connection with' this incident, the two, appellants (who will be referred to as A-l and A-2 respectively) were tried, convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge or Anantapur as under: A-l was convicted Under Section 307 J.P.C. and Under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count. A-2 was convicted Under Section 307 read with Section 109 IPC and Under Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count. The sentences of both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.(Here His Lordship narrated the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R ON THE29H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2066 OF2016BETWEEN : IMRAN JALAL @ BILAL AHMED @ KOTA @ SALEEM @ HADI, SON OF SHAMSHUDDIN, AGED ABOUT44YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16, SADARBAI, HAZARATHBAL, SRINAGAR, JAMMU AND KASHMIR, INDIA. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT No.262/51, RANIPET, HOSPET, BELLARY, KARNATAKA. (BY SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH (H & B) POLICE, N.T.PET, BENGALURU. (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANTH, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)... RESPONDENT... APPELLANT2THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OF SENTENCE DATED0410.2016 AND0510.2016 PASSED BY THE55H ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-56), BENGALURU CITY IN S.C. NO.1031/2008 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3293; 2005CriLJ3748; 2005(4)KLT74(SC); (2005)7SCC29; 2005(2)LC1225(SC)
B.P. Singh, J. Special leave granted.In this appeal the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 29th August, 2003 in Criminal Appeal No.995 of 2003. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the order of the Special Judge dated 11.07.2003 granting extension of time to complete the investigation in exercise of power under Section 49 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, as also the order of the Special Judge dated 25.7.2003 dismissing the bail application of the appellant herein.The facts giving rise to this appeal, in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be noticed at the outset. A blast took place in a local train approaching platform No.3 of the Mulund Railway Station, Mumbai, resulting in the death of 11 persons and injuring 82 others. Investigation disclosed that the incident was the result of a conspiracy hatched by several perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal114,147Ind.Cas.1172
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellants Madhu Sudan Sen Gupta, Shiba Das Daw and Nikhil Chandra Guha Roy were tried with one Ramphal in the Court of the Special Judge of Murshidabad Under Sub-sections 4(a) and 5, Explosive Substances Act (6 of 1908) and Section 410 read with Section 120-B, I. PC. The trial was under Ordinance 2 of 1932. Ramphal was acquitted and the other three were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. It is unnecessary to deal in detail with the evidence, because the case turns almost entirely upon the evidence of the approver Kalu. This evidence was very full and, if it is believed, there can be no question about the guilt of all the three appellants. The real question therefore for us to decide is whether it is safe to allow the conviction to stand upon the evidence of the approver or, in other words, whether there is sufficient and proper corroboration in law of this evidence.2. The prosecution story begins with the association of some of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO.4 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.728 OF2015ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. .. PETITIONER (S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT (S) 1 ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking emergent reliefs in relation to the extreme air pollution in the National Capital Region (hereinafter NCR).2. We have heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has sought wide ranging reliefs against the use of fireworks (including fire crackers), prevention of harmful crop burning, dumping of malba and further steps towards environmental purity. We have, however, restricted this order to grant of interim relief in respect of fireworks.3. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the use of fireworks in the NCR has posed a serious problem to the inhability of the air during Diwali and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.679 OF2015ABU SALEM ABDUL KAYYUM ANSARI Appellant Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.180/2018 JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. Crime and punishment is something which has agitated the judicial minds. Punishment cannot be disproportionately high or low. It should not be oppressive, but should serve the purpose of deterrence against crimes in a society along with a sense of justice to the victim and their family. This is a delicate balance, which has to be kept in mind an 1 aspect recently discussed in the judgment of this Court in Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Navjot Singh Sidhu & Ors.1 As was observed in the said case, the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. We are faced with a somewhat similar scenario though with certain crucial nuances, which have to be considered. Facts :2. Abu ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1905
A. Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals are interlinked as Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1995, is by Ajmer Khan and Md. Slier Bahadur Khan (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' by name) while Jail Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1995, is by accused Mr. Sher Bahadur Khan. This judgment shall govern both the appeals.2. Challenge in these two appeals is to legality of judgment and order dated 16-12-1994, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1993, (S. C. No. 365 of 1992, of Sessions Judge, Jeypore). Each of the accused was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, iPC), and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.Nine persons including the accused-appellants faced trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/109, read with Section 34, IPC, and Section 5(2)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, (in short, 'the Explosives Act').3. Prosecution vers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 1ST MAGHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 255 of 2013 () -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 209/2012 OF KAKKUR POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE ........ ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. SAJEEV.P. AGED 3 YEARS S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN,MOROTH HOUSE,KARUVASSERY KOZHIKODE-673 010.2. VISWANATHAN.M. AGED 4 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN,MOONNAM KUTTIYIL HOUSE,KARUVASSERY KOZHIKODE-673 010. BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAKKUR POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE-673 013.2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN...
Tag this Judgment!