Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)1005; 2004CriLJ4627; 2005(1)CTC350; JT2004(8)SC87; RLW2004(4)SC607; 2004(8)SCALE257; (2004)11SCC612
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals were tried b the Designated Court, Patiala, for various offences such as punishable under Section 120B, 302, 307, 394 IPC; Section 25 of the Arms Act; and Sections 3(1), 3(2) & 3(3) of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [for short, 'the TADA Act']. Along with these two appellants, one Balwinder Singh @ Fauji @ Pradhan was shown as the third accused, but he was absconding and was declared as a proclaimed offender, not available for trial. The appellants were found guilty by the Designated Court for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC and also under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act. Both of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- with default sentence for six months, for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC. For the offence under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR576
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the notifications dated 30.5.1988 and 18.3.1989 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Petitioners claim to be the owners of certain lands which were proposed for acquisition under Section 4(1) of Act, in favour of the 4th respondent-Trinity House Building Co-operative Society, to provide sites to its members. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioners have filed their objections objecting the proposed acquisition on several grounds. The Land Acquisition Officer overruled all the objections and submitted the Report recommending for acquisition of the lands. On the basis of the said Report, the Government has issued a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. These notifications are called in question in these petitions.3. The brief facts of the case are:-That one Sri S. Rangar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2253
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. All these writ petitions raise similar questions and have been heard together.2. By these writ petitions, the advertisement dated 1st February, 2005 issued by the Additional Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation advertising 1500 posts of conductor for being filled up has been challenged. In Writ Petition No. 16154 of 2005 counter and supplementary counter affidavits, rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, in some other writ petitions also counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Writ Petition No. 16154 of 2005 is being treated as leading writ petition and it is sufficient to refer the pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition for deciding the controversy raised in all these writ petitions.3. The petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions are in two categories. The first category of petitioners are those petitioners who were imparted apprenticeship training under the Apprenticeship Act, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1713; 1971CriLJ1271; (1972)4SCC558; 1971(III)LC710(SC)
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention of the petitioner by Order No. 50/PDA/70 dated August 3, 1970 passed by Syed Mohammad Shaffi Andrabi, I.A.S., District Magistrate, Poonch, Under Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act 1964 In this order it is stated that the District Magistrate is satisfied that with a view to preventing Lal Mohd. son of Fazal-ud-Din, resident of Arri P.S Mendhar District Poonch, from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of State, it was necessary to detain him. By another order dated August 3, 1970, the said District Magistrate considered it against the public interest to disclose the grounds of detention to Lal Mohd and he therefore directed in pursuance of Section 8 read with Section 13-A of the Act that the said Lal Mohd. be informed that it was against the security of the State to disclose to him the grounds on which his detention order was made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1701; 1992(2)BLJR1319; 1992CriLJ2717; JT1991(6)SC431; 1991(2)SCALE1273; (1992)1SCC225; [1991]Supp3SCR325
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. It is more than 12 years since this Court declared in Hussain Ara Khatoon : 1979CriLJ1036 that right to speedy trial is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21. Many a decision thereafter re-affirmed the principle. There has never been a dissenting note. It is held that violation of this right entails quashing of charges and/or conviction. It is, however, contended now before us that no such fundamental right flows from Article 21. At any rate, it is argued, it is only a facet of a fair and reasonable procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and nothing more. It is also argued that violation of this right does not result in quashing of the charges and/or conviction. It is submitted that the right, if at all there is one, is an amorphous one, a right which is something less than other fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. On the other hand, proponents of the right want us to go a step forward and prescribe a time limit beyond which no cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)986; AIR1996SC2306; JT1996(2)SC117; 1996LabIC975; 1996(1)SCALE743; (1996)3SCC576; [1996]2SCR1; 1996(1)LC604(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Short but an important question of constitutional law of the power of the Court to declare a particular tribe to be Scheduled Tribe under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment Act), 1976 (for short, 'the Act') is the primary question.3. The appellants, Assistant Teachers in the service of the State of Bihar belonging to Lohar caste, claimed the status as Scheduled Tribe under the Act and the order and sought promotion on that basis in the quota reserved, for the Scheduled Tribes. When the request was not acceded to, the appellants had filed CWJC No. 10593/92. The High Court by impugned order dated August 12, 1993, dismissed the same.4. Appellants' case is founded on two-fold basis, firstly, Lohar community was included in the Schedule under the Act as reflected in the Hindi version of the order and that thereby they are entitled to be recognised as Scheduled Tribes. Secondly, it i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002BomCR(Cri)228; (2001)3BOMLR797; 2001(3)MhLj897
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant State of Maharashtra under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the (Cr.P.C.), being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Kolhapur in Criminal Case No. 157 of 1981. By the impugned Judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the Respondents/original accused Mohiddin Gaibi Chougule for offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules thereunder, as amended.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :The Food Inspector Mr. B. K. Karyappa went alongwith Mahadeo Anna Alase (the panch witness), and paid visit to the milk dairy of the Respondent/accused known as M/s. Shetkari Seva Dugdhalaya situated at CTS No. 1586 in 'C' ward at Kolhapur. He paid his visit on 9th March, 1981 at about 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR658; 2008(4)MhLj167
R.C. Chavan, J.1. Fifty years ago while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 330 of 1957 raising similar questions between the predecessors of the present parties, concerning the same property, a Division Bench of this Court observed in para 2 of the judgment in Lala Jugalkishore (Landholder) v. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and Ors. reported at 1958 NLJ 355 that 'This case has a very chequered history'. History repeats and so we repeat those words.2. The appellant was a tenant in respect of certain agricultural lands belonging to the respondent-landlord in the Agricultural Year 1951-52. The extent of those lands was said to be about 84 acres. The appellant was entitled to be a protected lessee in respect of 50 acres of those lands in terms of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. For the sake of ready reference, those sections may be usefully reproduced as under:3. (1) Every lease of land by a landholder entitling the less...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(3)ALT1
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. This judgment will dispose of all the six writ petitions since they raise common questions for decision. When the writ petitions were filed, the petitioners were either Chairmen of Zilla Praja Parishads or Presidents of Mandala Praja Parishads. Except the Chairman of the Rangareddy Zilla Parishad, the term of office of the other petitioners has expired. The challenge in the writ petitions, was originally confined to the legality of (1) G.O.Ms. No. 164, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department (Mandals-I) dated 8-3-90 by which a rule was made under Sub-section (1) of Section 92 and Sub-section (6) of Section 28 of the Mandala Praja Parishads, Zilla Praja Parishads and Zilla Abhivrudhi Sameeksha Mandals Act, 1986 (MPP & ZPP Act for short) and (2) G.O.Ms. No. 303, General Administration (Services-A) Department dt. 17-4-90, by which, the District Selection Committee for recruitment to the posts both in Government Departments and Panchayat Raj Bodies in the distri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1977(1)ELT1(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the question that arises for determination is as to the mode of valuation of the goods manufactured by the petitioner company for the purpose of levy of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. For the purpose of determination of the value of its product, for levy of excise duty, the petitioner company submitted its price list to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Shikohabad (hereinafter called the Superintendent) containing the prices at which it claimed to be selling its products to five companies (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies). He did not accept the price list, but directed the petitioner company to submit the price list in Form IV containing the prices at which five companies to which it sells its entire output (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies) sell those products. The petitioner company has challenged the ...
Tag this Judgment!