Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3575; 2001(49)BLJR2101; 2001CriLJ4238; JT2001(7)SC157; 2001(5)SCALE500; (2001)7SCC657
ORDER1. In an inquiry conducted under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1986 Act') the Trial Court recorded a finding to the effect that petitioner Arnit Das was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence. This finding was upheld by the learned Session Judge in an appeal filed by petitioner-Arnit Das. The High Court also dismissed revision petition filed by the petitioner against that finding. Order of the High Court was put in issue by the petition in SLP (Crl. ) 729/2000. In an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 469/2000) arising out of that special leave petition [since Arnit Das Vs . State of Bihar : 2000CriLJ2971 ], dealing with issue, it was observed:'24. So far as the finding regarding the age of the appellant is concerned it is based on appreciation of evidence and arrived at after taking into consideration the material available on record and valid reasons having been assigned for it. The finding arrived at by the learned ACJM has been) main...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3566; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)504; 2004(2)BLJR1378; 98(2004)CLT491(SC); 2004CriLJ2881; 112(2004)DLT457(SC); 2004(77)DRJ390; RLW2004(3)SC402; 2004(6)SCALE15; (2004)5SCC518;
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by way of public interest litigation, by Sakshi, which is an organisation to provide legal, medical, residential, psychological or any other help, assistance or charitable support for women, in particular those who are victims of any kind of sexual abuse and/or harassment, violence or any kind of atrocity or violation and is a violence intervention center. The respondents arrayed in the writ petition are (1) Union of India; (2) Ministry of Law and Justice; and (3) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi. The main reliefs claimed in the writ petition arc as under :A) Issue a writ in the nature of a declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring inter alia that 'sexual intercourse' as contained in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code shall include all forms of penetration such as penile/vaginal penetration, penile/oral penetration, penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/anal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC718; (1984)86BOMLR228; 1984CriLJ647; 1984(1)Crimes547(SC); 1984(1)SCALE239; (1984)2SCC500; [1984]2SCR914
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 510 of 1982, which was preferred by the appellant against the rejection of his application by the learned special Judge as per his order dated October 20, 1982.2. The various stages through which Special Case No. 24 of 1982 progressed upto and inclusive of October 18, 1982 have been set out in our Judgment rendered today in cognate Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1983 and they need not be recapitulated here. After the learned special Judge Shri P.S. Bhutta took cognizance of the offences upon a complaint of Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, the first respondent (Original complainant), the case was adjourned to October 18, 1982 for recording the evidence of the complainant. On that day, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in the trial court moved an application questioning the jurisdiction of the court on two specific counts; (i) that the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2736; JT2003(3)SC346; 2003(3)SCALE457; (2003)5SCC399; [2003]3SCR75
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.3.1995 of a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 2.9.1994 of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by Pandit Durga Prasad, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) had been allowed was affirmed.2. There is a temple known as Shri Madan Mohan Mandir in Jawahar Nagar, Harda in the District of Hoshangabad. There are some shops in the precincts of the temple which have been let out to different tenants. According to the appellant, the temple and the shops are owned and managed by a public trust known as Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir. While according to Pandit Durga Prasad, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e), the temple and the shops are property of his family and they do not belong to any public trust. 3. Pandi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2176; 1991CriLJ3086; 1991(3)Crimes232(SC); (1991)2GLR1138; JT1991(3)SC617; 1991(2)SCALE501; (1991)4SCC431; [1991]3SCR936
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. On 25th September, 1989, a horrendus incident took place in the town of Nadiad, District Kheda in the State of Gujarat, which exhibited the berserk behaviour of Police undermining the dignity and independence of judiciary. S.R. Sharma, Inspector of Police, with 25 years of service posted at the Police Station, Nadiad, arrested, assaulted and handcuffed N.L. Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad and tied him with a thick rope like an animal and made a public exhibition of it by sending him in the same condition to the Hospital for medical examination on an alleged charge of having consumed liquor in breach of the prohibition law enforced in the State of Gujarat. The Inspector S.R. Sharma got the Chief Judicial Magistrate photographed in handcuffs with rope tied around his body alongwith the constables which were published in the news papers all over the country. This led to tremors in the Bench and the Bar throughout the whole country.2. The incident undermined ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1999(6)SC342; (1999)IILLJ924SC; 1999(5)SCALE313; (1999)7SCC547; [1999]Supp2SCR89
S.B. Majmudar, J. 1. This appeal, on certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay, brings in challenge the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Appeal No. 685 of 1984 decided on 18th July, 1986. It raises the question of correct interpretation of Section 3(25) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIR Act'). The said provision defines the term 'Member' of a trade union which is registered under the BIR Act. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy centering round the aforesaid question a few introductory facts deserve to be noted at the outset.BACKGROUND FACTS :2. The appellant is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is functioning at Greater Bombay and seeks to cater to the problems of its members who are workmen engaged in cotton textile industry situated therein. Respondent No. 4 is duly registered as a representative union in the cotton textile industry for the local area of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2781; 2009CriLJ3961; JT2009(8)SC169; 2009(7)SCALE263; (2009)6SCC316:2009AIRSCW4213
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted in SLP(Crl.)No.5677/2007.2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1085, 1088 and 1089 of 2006 have been taken up for final disposal along with SLP(Crl.) No. 5677 of 2007, inasmuch as, they arise out of the same set of facts and common questions of law are involved. SLP (Crl.) No. 5677 of 2007 has been filed by Jamiruddin Ansari, challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court on 16th April, 2007, rejecting his prayer for bail, although, he is in custody since his arrest on 10th October, 2004, without trial, till he was released on bail by this Court in the pending special leave petition on 19th December, 2008. Criminal Appeal No. 1085/06 has been filed by Ashok, son of Gyanchand Vohra, against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 127 of 2005, which had been heard by a Bench of three Judges on a reference being made to resolve two conflicting views which had been taken by two Division Benches of the Bombay High Court relating to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC254; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)945; 2008(133)ECC167; 2008(159)LC167(SC); 2008(231)ELT397(SC); RLW2008(4)SC3251; 2008(13)SCALE171
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated November 30, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 7572 and 7573 of 2006 whereby certain directions have been issued by a Single Judge to the Customs Authorities. The High Court held that since the respondents herein were merely summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to give their statements in the inquiry, anticipatory bail applications filed by them were pre-mature and were required to be disposed of. The learned Single Judge, therefore, ordered the respondents to appear before the Customs Authorities in response to the summons. He, however, directed that in case the Customs Authorities find that any non-bailable offence has been committed by the respondents, they shall not be arrested without ten days prior notice.Facts3. It is the case of the appellant (Union of India) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This order, and its accompanying directions, are an outcome of the bail matter in Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics listed before this bench, wherein an accused, who had been languishing in prison for more than twelve years, awaiting the commencement of his trial for an offence under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act"), was consistently denied bail, even by the High Court. Significantly, the maximum punishment for the offence the accused was incarcerated for, is twenty years; hence, the undertrial had remained in detention for a period exceeding one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment. An express pronouncement of this Court in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 731], which held that "where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a min...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC52; 1978LabIC1644; (1979)2SCC124; [1979]1SCR820
Sen, J.1. These appeals by special leave directed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court dated July 19, 1973, raise a question of far reaching importance. The question is whether an educational institution established and managed by a religious or linguistic minority is bound by the provisions of Ordinance 33(4), Chapter LVII of the Ordinances framed by the Syndicate of the University of Kerala, under Section 19(j) of the Kerala University Act, 1957.2. Smt. Lilly Kurian, the appellant herein, was appointed as Principal of the St. Joseph Training College for Women, Ernakulam in the year 1957. The College was established by the Congregation of the Mothers of Carmal, which is a religious society of Nnus belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, and is affiliated to the University of Kerala. It is administered by a Managing Board, and the Provincial of the Congregation is its President.3. On October 30, 1969, there was an unfortunate incident between the appellant and one P.K. Rajarat...
Tag this Judgment!