Court : Sikkim
Reported in : [1989]180ITR530(Sikkim)
R. Dayal, Actg. C.J. 1. All these writ petitions involve, with minor differences, common questions of law and facts and concern the validity and interpretation of the law of income-tax, transfer fees and recovery proceedings in the State of Sikkim. 2. Sikkim became a component State of the Indian Union by and under the Constitution (36th Amendment) Act, 1975, which inserted Article 371-F in the Constitution. Clause (k) of that article provides that all laws in force immediately before the appointed day (i.e., 26th day of April, 1975) in the territories comprised in the State of Sikkim or any part thereof shall continue to be in force therein until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. Clause (n) provides that the President may, by public notification, extend with such restrictions or modifications as he thinks fit to the State of Sikkim any enactment which is in force in a State in India on the date of the notification. The Income-tax Act, 1961, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1987CriLJ491
ORDERJ.K. Mohanty, C.J.1. This revision has been filed b' the State of Sikkim praying thai sentence of fine imposed on the respondents while convicting them Under Section 292, Penal Code IS. 293 perhaps has not been mentioned due to inadvertence) is not according to law. As per the l.P.C, as it stood on the date of commission of the offence, sentence of imprisonment should have been imposed. In this case accused-respondents were prosecuted for having committed offences Under Sections 292, 293, l.P.C. and Section 14, Indian Cinematograph Act. They pleaded guilty and the Magistrate imposed fine of Rs. 100.00 Under Section 292, l.P.C, Rs. 150.00 Under Section 292, l.P.C. and Rs. 40.00 Under Section 14, Indian Cinematograph Act. The reason for imposing sentence of fine only as mentioned in the order was that the amendment made in the Penal Code in the year 1969 making imprisonment compulsory does not apply to the State of Sikkim. According to the learned Magistrate l.P.C. as it stood on 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1986CriLJ415
ORDERR. Dayal, J.1. This revision challenges the validity of the Order dt. 4-2-1985, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangtok, whereby the prayer made by the prosecution for adjournment and issue of fresh summonses to two witnesses, namely, Shri K.P. Chinnaswami, Assistant Director of Education, Tamil Nadu, and Shri G. Krishnamoorthy, S.P., Special Branch, Kerala, was at first allowed on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs, but later on the prosecution declining to pay the costs, was refused and the prosecution evidence was closed.2. FIR against both the accused-respondents was lodged on 23-3-1982, and they were arrested and released on bail some time in March or April, 1982. A charge-sheet was filed against them on 1-9-1982, by the Sikkim Vigilance Police under Section 120B read with Sections 468, 471 and 417, Penal Code. Charges were framed against both the respondents under Sections 120B, 468, 471 and 417, Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge on 18th May, 1983, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1423
A.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. The main question involved in these two cases is whether, under the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution, the Sikkim Criminal Procedure Act of 1976 is void to the extent of its repugnancy to the provisions of the Cr. P.C. 1973, the Sikkim Act admittedly not having received the assent of the President. There should be no doubt that if the Cr. P.C. of 1973, a law made by Parliament, was in operation in the State of Sikkim when the Sikkim Criminal Procedure Act of 1976 was enacted by the Sikkim State Legislature, then, both the enactments being with respect to matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, the Sikkim Act would be void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Parliamentary Code under the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 254 of the Constitution, as admittedly the Sikkim Act ;has not received the assent of the President in accordance with the provisions of Article 254(2).2. Sikkim has been incorporated in the Union of India in May,...
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 : 1981CriLJ695
Man Mohan Singh Gujral, C.J.1. This Reference under Article 228 of the Constitution of India and Section 432 of the Cr. P.C. made by the learned Sessions Judge of Sikkim at Gangtok by his order dated 28th of Nov., 1979, brings to the forefront the question of the constitutional validity of the Sikkim Criminal Procedure Act. 1976 (hereinafter called the 'Sikkim Act') in the light of the provisions of Article 371-F (k) of the Constitution of India. The answer to this question would finally settle the procedure to be followed by the Courts in Sikkim in respect of the trials of criminal cases pending therein. The circumstances leading to this Reference may first briefly be stated.2. The controversy involved has a close link with the judicial history of Sikkim during the last three decades. Though from the historical point of view the period does not relate to distant past yet the procedural atmosphere is surrounded with such mystery as if excavation of pre-historic culture is needed to unr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1979CriLJ310
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The accused-appellant has been convicted on his own plea of guilty to a charge under Section 25 (1) of the Arms Act, 1959, which has been extended to Sikkim by the President by a notification under the provisions of Oreder (n) of Article 371F of the Constitution of India on 16th May, 1975, and enforced on 1st Aug., 1976. The charge was that the accused on or about 19th Feb.. 1978, had in his possession a revolver and one live cartridge without any licence therefor and the accused has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. If the Amu Act, 1959, ii validly operative in Sikkim as a result of its extension to and enforcement in Sikkim under the provisions of Article 371F (n) of the Constitution, then the conviction must be maintained and the appeal must be dismissed as there is and can be no other challenge to the conviction in this case.3. Under Section 412 of Cr.P.C. 1898, which is still now the law relating to Criminal Procedure in S...
Tag this Judgment!