Court : Chennai
Not infrequently in the past, if not in many cases, at least in some cases, while examining the correctness and legality of the Judgment of the Criminal Courts, this Court has witnessed that charges had not been framed properly, evidence collected during investigation had not been let in during trial appropriately, the examination of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been done scrupulously, the power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, had not been exercised promptly and lastly, the appreciation of evidence had not been done meticulously. With pains, we would like to state that the instant case is a classic example as to how the stakeholders in the dispensation of the criminal justice have miserably failed in their duties and as a consequence, the appellants, who have been projected as the perpetrators of the heinous crime, flee away from the clutches of the strong arm of the law. With this prelude, let us go into the facts of the case....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 3.3.2011 which dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the defendants/respondents. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed being double the amount of earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/- which was paid under an agreement to sell dated 5.1.2007. By the agreement to sell dated 5.1.2007, the appellant/plaintiff had agreed to purchase and the respondents/defendants had agreed to sell the suit property measuring 2,000 square yards forming part of Khasra no.72, Village Sabhapur, Chauhan Patti, Illaka Shahdara, Delhi.2. When notice was issued in this appeal, counsel for the appellant confined his relief in the appeal not for payment of double the amount of earnest money but for refund of the advance price paid of Rs.5,00,000/-. This relief claimed is a lesser relief than the origina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 On 29th August, 2011, the hearing of the Petition was concluded and the Judgment was reserved. 2 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. Mr. Vani, Advocate for the Respondent waives service. 3 The Petitioner is the Original Plaintiff in RAD Suit No.35 of 1998 which has been filed in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he is the monthly tenant of the Defendant/ Landlord in respect of the flat ad-measuring 2121 sq. feet on the ground floor of the building known as "Asmita" at Vile Parle (W), Bombay. The Plaintiff has pleaded that the suit premises were let out to him in the year 1969 and it is his further case that though the rent was agreed to be Rs.1,300/- per month, the Defendant stated that if the rent is shown high, property tax would be charged at higher rate, that a Leave and License Agreement was kept ready by the Defendants which showed that a near relative of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
JagdishSingh Khehar, J.1. On 11.7.2006 there were seven bomb blasts in seven different first class compartments of local trains of Mumbai Suburban Railways. These bomb blasts resulted in the death of 187 persons. Severe injuries on account of the said bomb blasts were caused to 829 persons. These blasts led to the registration of following seven criminal reports:i) CR No.77 of 2006 at Mumbai Central Police Station.ii) CR No.78 of 2006 at Mumbai Central Police Station.iii) CR No.86 of 2006 at Bandra Railway Police Stationiv) CR No.87 of 2006 at Bandra Railway Police Stationv) CR No.41 of 2006 at Andheri Railway Police Station.vi) CR No.59 of 2006 at Vasai Road Railway Police Stationvii) CR No.156 of 2006 at Borivli Railway Police Station.In all these cases investigation was transferred to the Anti Terrorists Squad, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the ATS”), wherein the matter was registered as CR No.5 of 2006.2. In all 13 accused were arrested in connection with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2011)9SCC479
1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court, on an appeal filed by the State of Tripura-respondent herein, reversed the order of acquittal of the appellants herein dated 19.04.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai in Case S.T. No. 54(WT/K)/2002 and convicted and sentenced them to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC ) with a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default, to suffer a further term of simple imprisonment for three months. b) Criminal Appeal No.1719 of 2011 @ SLP (Crl.) 6728/2011 ( Crl. M.P.17812 of 2008)2) The convicted accused, Tapan Das (A-5) and Gautam Das (A-11), against the same order of the High Court dated 29.01.2008 confirming their conviction under Section 302 IPC and imposing life sentence with a fine of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC520; 2012(1)SCC(Cr)496; 2012(1)KCCR1(SN); AIR2011SCW6535; AIR2012SC31; 2012CriLJ625; 2012(1)LW(Crl)399; 2012(2)MLJ(Crl)371; 2012(1)MWN(Cr)DCC157
1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1238 of 2007 wherein the learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for quashing of Criminal Complaint being No. 993/1 of 2005 filed against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi. 3) Brief facts: (a) The appellant, who was a non-executive Director on the Board of M/s Lapareil Exports (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company ), resigned from the Directorship w.e.f. 31.08.1998. On 20.11.1998, recording the resignation of the appellant, the Company filed statutory Form 32 with the Registrar of Companies. A notice dated 10.12.2004 was issued to the appellant regarding dishonour of alleged cheques under Section 138 of the Act by the respondents. The appellant, vide letter dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. These two appeals on behalf of the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit are directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2010 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South-East-02, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.53/2008 arising out of FIR No.428/2004 registered at police station Defence Colony under Sections 302/380/201/411/34 IPC. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit were found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as also for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 02.03.2010, whereby both the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit were sentenced to imprisonment for life in respect of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 2000/- each. Insofar as the offence under Section 380/34 IPC is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 21.12.2010 of learned Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C.No.58 of 2010 convicting and sentencing the appellants.JUDGMENTP.DEVADASS,J.1. Appellants 1 and 2, who are A.1 and A.2, in Sessions Case No.58 of 2010 were found guilty under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, who has convicted them to life and fined Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.2. For convenience sake, throughout the judgment, appellants 1 and 2 shall be called as A.1 and A.2.3. The prosecution case may briefly be stated as under:(i) P.W.1 Perumayee's son is Mayavan. He married his uncle Rengan's daughter Ratha @ Anuratha (A.2). They were residing in door No.8/208, near Bagavathiamman kovil, Kattur, Thirukampuliyur, in Krishnarayapuram Taluk, in Karur District. In one part of his house, he is running his tea shop. They have three daughters and one son. P.W.1 is also re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The appellant has challenged his conviction in Sessions Case No.115 of 2003, titled as „State v. Bhura’, arising from the FIR No.350 of 2003, under Sections 323/325/ 342/ 354/ 387/ 376 Indian Penal Code, PS Anand Vihar convicting the appellant under Sections 376, 326, 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous life imprisonment under Section 376 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Ms.Rinchu, the prosecutrix was working as a Private Nurse/Attendant, in Shanti Mukund Hospital, situated within the bounds of Police Station Anand Vihar. At the time of incident she was engaged to look after Sh. S.K. Kaushik, an aged patient, in room No. 208, which is situated on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2010 made in S.C.No.80 of 2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.IV], Tiruppur.J U D G M E N TP.DEVADASS,J.,1. The appellant is accused in S.C.No.80 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No-IV], Tiruppur.2. On 30.06.2010, in the said Court, he was found guilty and sentenced as under:-Sl.No. Conviction sentence1 Under Section 323 IPC (for having caused simple hurt to P.W.1 Jayammal)6 months rigorous imprisonment.2 Under Section 323 IPC (for having caused simple hurt to P.W.2 Sheela)6 months rigorous imprisonment .3 Under Section 302 IPC (for having caused the death of Jayapaul)Life plus fine Rs.1000/-, in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-(i) Deceased Jayapaul and Yesudass are brothers. Yesudass's son is t...
Tag this Judgment!