Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1883; 1988(36)BLJR633; 1989CriLJ1; JT1988(3)SC191; 1988(2)SCALE117; (1988)3SCC609; [1988]Supp2SCR24
ORDER OF THE COURTSd/-(USHA MEHRA)REGISTRAR16. On the same day, the High Court passed another order under Section 194 of the Code designating Shri Mahesh Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge as the Judge to try the said case. Shri Mahesh Chandra was a Senior District and Sessions Judge at the Courts in New Delhi within the jurisdiction of which the offence was committed. The case of the appellants is that the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue the first notification directing the trial at Tihar Jail. It is argued that Section 9(6) confers power on the High Court to specify by notification a place or places at which criminal trials can be held by the Court of Session in the Union Territory of Delhi. The requirement of a notification of the High Court of the place or places where the Court of Session will function is intended to facilitate the process of public participation. Such a notification, it is submitted, has already been issued by the High Court of Delhi. The whole of the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1416; (1985)87BOMLR563; (1985)3CompLJ45(SC); [1985(51)FLR362]; (1985)IILLJ206SC; 1985(2)SCALE133; (1985)3SCC398; [1985]Supp2SCR131; 1985(2)SLJ145(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. The above Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court and the above Writ Petitions filed either in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or in different High Courts under Article 226 and transferred to this Court raise a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution and in particular of what is now, after the amendment of Clause (2) of Article 311 by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the second proviso to that clause.The Genesis of the Appeals and Writ Petitions2. To understand what questions fall for determination by this Court in these Appeals and Writ Petitions, it is first necessary to sketch briefly how they have come to be heard by this Constitution Bench.3. Article 311 of the Constitution confers certain safeguards upon persons employed in civil capacities under the Union of India or a State. The first safeguard (which is given by Clause (1) of Article 311) is that s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC992; (1970)1SCC753; [1971]1SCR227
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals from a judgment of the Madras High Court involve the true ambit, scope and content of Section 72 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The facts may be briefly stated. On 4th January, 1969 the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a Notice Under Section 72 of the Act to the Committee of the North Arcot District Cooperative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. It was stated in the notice that the Committee had not been functioning properly for sometime past. Charges were mentioned in detail and the Committee was called upon to make a representation against the proposal to dissolve it in view of the defects and irregularities mentioned in the notice. After examining the representation which was quite lengthy and detailed, the Registrar recorded an Order on 11th April, 1969 dealing with each charge and holding that the Committee had not been functioning properly and had failed to perform its duties and discha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2004; 1971LabIC1182; (1971)ILLJ576SC; (1971)2SCC168; [1971]SuppSCR477
I.D. Dua, J.1. We have read the judgment prepared by our learned brother Bhargava, We are in complete agreement with him so far as decision on points Nos. (2) & (3) is concerned, but with respect we are unable to agree with him on point No. (1).2. It is unnecessary to repeat the relevant facts which have been set out by our learned brother in his judgment. The impugned order dated April 1, 1965, in the case of appellant P.K. Hore may however, be again reproduced:The Governor is satisfied that Shri P.K. Hore, Superintendent, P.W.D.F.C. & I Wing against whom more charges have been received is unfit to be retained in the public service and that he ought to be dismissed from service.The Governor is further satisfied under Sub-clause (c) of the proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to give the said Shri P.K. Hore an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him as s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(5)SC304; (2004)10SCC84
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 dated 27-4-1995 was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed in Rajasthan High Court, Respondent No. 1 was an employee of the central social welfare board and he was working as welfare officer. He had been sent ondeputation as secretary on 2.11.88 and he was finally absorbed by order dated 24.1.1991. Thus, he became an employee of the state board. While he was continuing as an employee of the stateboard, the appropriate authority found several derelictions on his part, including the dereliction of release of Rs. 8 lakhs in favour of his own brother for nonexistent projects. He was suspended from service in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and then a notice was issued to show cause as to why, for the charges against him, he should not be appropriately dealt with. The said respondent No. 1 filed his reply to the notice of show cause and finally, a regular inquiry was held in October, 1994. Two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2257; JT1987(3)SC532; (1988)ILLJ453SC; 1987(2)SCALE457; (1987)4SCC328; [1988]1SCR27; 1988(1)SLJ121(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated July 24, 1985 raises two questions, namely: (1) Was the Union of India justified in passing an order dated September 17, 1982 in terms of FR 25 declaring the appellant to be unfit to cross the efficiency bar as Assistant Engineer, Central Public Works Department at the stage of Rs. 590 in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 350-590-EB-90G as from October 5, 1966? And (2) Is the appellant entitled to interest on the delayed payment of his pension?2. This litigation has had a chequered career. The appellant who was as Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works Department was placed under suspension pending a departmental enquiry under Rule 12(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control AND Appeal) Rules, 1965 on September 3, 1959. He remained on suspension till May 25, 1970 when on repeated representation the Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Departmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3357; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)1210; 2003(3)BLJR2020; JT2003(Suppl1)SC335; 2003(7)SCALE524; (2003)8SCC361
Brijesh Kumar, J. 1. In this appeal, preferred by the State of Bihar, ultimately the question which falls for consideration is the effect of non-compliance of all time tested and ancient principle of natural justice. One cannot be condemned unheard is one of the attributes of the principles of natural justice, which operates even in absence of a written provision under the law. Though in the case in hand there is such a provision which, according to the appellant, was not necessary to be complied with, but the High Court of Patna has held to the contrary. It relates to applicability of Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952) (for short 'the Act'). 2. In the year 1989 some communal riots took place in Bhagalpur District, State of Bihar, resulting in many deaths and left some others injured. Undoubtedly, it was a matter of concern and the State Government decided to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under: '3. Appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC404; (2002)3UPLBEC2696
ORDER1. 1. Leave granted.2. The executive committee constituted under provisions of Section 6 of the United Khasi- Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) initiated certain proceedings inter alia and directed as follows:'Now, therefore, the executive committee, after consideration of all the facts and circumstances and being fully satisfied and for doing a free, fair and impartial justice in the inquiry, hereby suspend the said U laborious manik syiem from the post of syiem of myltiem elaka with immediate effect and until further order, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Sub-clause (ii) of the third proviso to Section 6(1) of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 as amended.U laborious manik syiem, thus suspended shall cease to do any function relating to the office of the syiem of mylliem and shall cease to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1367; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)559; 2006CriLJ1694; (2006)2GLR1493; JT2006(3)SC399; 2006(2)KLT350(SC); 2006(I)OLR(SC)721; 2006(3)SCALE104; (2006)3SCC374
Criminal Mis. Petition Nos. 6658-6661 of 2004 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 446-449 of 2004Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The case at hand immediately brings into mind two stanzas (14 and 18) of Eighth Chapter of Manu Samhita dealing with role of witnesses. They read as follows:Stanza 14Jatro dharmo hyadharmenaSatyam JatranrutenachaHanyate prekshyamananamHatastrata Sabhasadah(Where in the presence of Judges 'dharma' is overcome by 'adharma' and 'truth' by 'unfounded falsehood', at that place they (the Judges) are destroyed by sin)Stanza 18Padodharmasya KartaramPadah sakshinomruchhatiPadah sabhasadah sarbanpado rajanmruchhati(In the adharma flowing from wrong decision in a Court of law, one fourth each is attributed to the person committing the adharma, witness, the judges and the ruler'.)2. This case has its matrix in an appeal filed by Zahira Habibullah hereinafter referred to as 'Zahira and another namely, Teesta Setelwad' and another appeal filed by the State of Gujarat. In the appeals filed before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1492; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)617; 2004CriLJ1394; I(2004)DMC575SC; JT2004(2)SC339; 2004(2)SCALE348; (2004)4SCC236
B.N. Agarwal, J. 1. The appellants were convicted by trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal being preferred, their conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court.2. The short facts are that on 4.5.1986 at 5.30 p.m. one Tirath Behera, who was Gramrakhi of Village Golabandha, submitted a report at Buguda Police Station disclosing therein that on the same day at 12.30 p.m. one Sarasu Jena @ Salu, wife of appellant No. 2 - Prasana Kumar Jena, committed suicide by hanging herself in her house. On the basis of this written report, Unnatural Death Case No. 3 dated 4.5.1986 was instituted, but subsequently, after a few days, on receipt of postmortem report of the dead body of Salu, a case under Section 302 of the Penal Code was registered against unknown persons. The police, after registration of the case, took up investigation, examined witnesses and upon completion thereof, having found the in...
Tag this Judgment!