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 : AIR2006Sik1
A.P. Subba, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by three petitioners each of whom belongs to the Lepcha community, Bhutia community and the local plains community of the State respectively. By this writ petition, they challenge the validity of allotment of lands made and the agreements entered into with three non-local parties as well as others by the State-respondents in gross violation of Indo-Sikkim Treaty, 1950 and Article 371-F of the Constitution of India.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are citizens of India and permanent residents of Sikkim. As permanent residents of the State they are extremely concerned with the allotment of land policy being presently pursued by the State-respondents in the name of development of the State. Under such policy, permission being given to the outsiders to purchase prime immovable property for setting up industries within the State of Sikkim is adverse to the general interest of the local people. It is the further case of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3259
Aftab H. Saikia, C.J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition witnesses a challenge basically to the order dated 12-7-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2006.2. The facts necessary for resolution of the point involved herein may be noticed in brief. On the basis of certain allegations of misappropriation in deposition of electricity charge payment with the State Bank of Sikkim, Ravongla collected by the Respondent, the State of Sikkim (for Short, 'the State') initiated a criminal proceeding against the Respondent under Sections 409/420/477-A and the Respondent, being a public servant, it was necessary at that moment to obtain sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P. C.').3. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed against the Respondent on 27-9-2006 accompanied by the sanction order dated 26-7-2006 (for short, 'the initial order').4. The initial order may be reproduced as...
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!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : (2000)159CTR(NULL)161
R. Dayal, C.J.The petitioner is a company registered under the Registration of Companies, Act, Sikkim, 1961, on 23-6-1986. It was served with three notices dated 16-3-1995, by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle-4, New Delhi under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, each stating that the assessing officer had reason to believe that the income of rupees forty lakhs had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of that Act and requiring the petitioner-company to deliver to him within thirty days from the date of the service of the notice an income tax return. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged these notices and claimed a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the same and also a mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw the same. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner-company was also served with three notices dated 5-2-199...
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 : [1991]191ITR575(Sikkim)
R. Dayal, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by petitioner No. 1, which is a private limited company (hereinafter referred as 'the company') and petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 who are its directors challenge the income-tax assessment order dated August 4, 1987, passed against the company under the Sikkim State Income-tax Manual, 1948, notices of demand issued against the petitioner, the order dated September 4, 1987, whereby the appeal preferred by petitioner No. 1 was rejected on account of its failure to make payment of 50 per cent, of the tax assessed in compliance with Notification No. 1220-200/IT and ST dated December 20, 1973, and also the validity of the Sikkim State Income-taxManual, the notification bearing No. 1220-200/IT and ST dated December 20, 1973, Order No. 405/50 dated November 21, 1950, the Sikkim (Collection of Taxes and Prevention of Evasion of Payment of Taxes) Act, 1987, and also of Notification No. 32/IT dated April 2, 1987, regardin...
Tag this Judgment!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 : 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 : 1999CriLJ1804
ORDERAnup Deb, Actg. C.J.1. By filing this revision petition the accused, Anand Bardewa has challenged the order dated 27-3-1998 passed in the Criminal Case No. 136 of 1997 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North, Gangtok whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for an offence under Section 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.).2. In the present case, the accused pleaded guilty to the charges. Various grounds have been taken. The accused is very young and he did not understand the intent and purport of the charge. It is further alleged that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to direct the accused to engage a lawyer at the State expense. He has also alleged that the prosecution has given assurance to the accused that they shall take a lenient view if the accused pleads guilty. Af...
Tag this Judgment!