Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1760; 1976LabIC1142; (1976)3SCC693; [1976]3SCR801; 1976(8)LC401(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant was working as a Ticket Examiner in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at its Nagpur Depot. On March 21, 1964 a bus belonging to the Corporation was checked by the Flying Squad when nine and half passengers out of 26 were found travelling without tickets. The appellant was on the bus in the discharge of his duties as a Ticket Examiner. The Flying Squad prepared a Panchnama on the spot obtaining thereon the signatures of the appellant, the driver and the ticket conductor. It was found that the conductor had collected the fate from all the 26 passengers who were travelling in the bus but had not issued tickets to 91/2 passengers. Since it was the duty of the appellant as a ticket Examiner to check whether the conductor had collected fare from all the passengers and in token thereof had issued tickets to them, a charge sheet was served on the appellant for breach of Clauses 12(b) and (d) of the Madhya Pradesh Standard Standing Orders which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3887; JT2003(Suppl1)SC505; 2003(7)SCALE197; (2003)7SCC726; 2004(1)LC332(SC)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a former judge of Madras High Court. He was appointed on 25.01.1979 and superannuated on 07.12.1981.In the meanwhile, by a notification dated 29.07.1981, he was appointed as Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the incidents which took place in Coimbatore Town on 23.07.1981 arising from attacks on the office premises of two Tamil newspapers 'Dinakaran' and 'Malai Murasu'. In the aforementioned notification dated 29.07.1981 it was stated: 'I am directed to say that the President requests Shri Justice P. Venugopal, Judge, Madras High Court to function as the Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 in respect of the incidents that took place in Coimbatore Town in Tamil Nadu on 23rd July, 1981. 2. The time spent by Shri Justice P. Venugopal in the performance of the said functions will count as 'Actual Service' within the meaning of paragraph 11(b)(i) of Part 'D' of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of India read with Section 2(1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(3)Crimes593(SC); JT1994(7)SC167; 1994(4)SCALE671; 1995Supp(2)SCC388
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. The facts in these cases bring to focus the mixed blend of efficacy of pragmatic procedure under Section 32; absolute disregard for truth; rank indiscipline among the so-called discipline police force, despite scientific advancement persistence of crude methods of investigation; depraved conduct of the official to forge signatures of higher official and the complicity of persons who moved this Court callously compromise with the officials to speak contrary to the facts placed before the Court. A practicing Advocate is no exception. He had sworn to an affidavit but not even slightest hesitation to make a somersault and deny his averments made in the sworn affidavit filed in this Court. These disturbing trends cause not only a deep anguish to this Court of the degeneration in the moral and official conduct but also feel difficult to place absolute reliance on affidavit evidence placed on record.2. The objective report of Mr. Kalyan Rudra, Director-General of Police, Ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)10SCC489
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Delinquent juveniles need to be dealt with differently from adults. International covenants and domestic laws in various countries have prescribed minimum standards for delinquent juveniles and juveniles in conflict with law. These standards provide what orders may be passed regarding delinquent juveniles and the orders that may not be passed against them. This group of matters raises the question of when should a claim of juvenility be recognised and sent for determination when it is raised for the first time in appeal or before this Court or raised in trial and appeal but not pressed and then pressed for the first time before this Court or even raised for the first time after final disposal of the case.2. It so happened that when criminal appeal preferred by Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain came up for consideration before a two-Judge Bench (Harjit Singh Bedi and J.M. Panchal, JJ) on 10.11.2009, on behalf of the appellant, a plea of juvenility on the date of incident w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2013(1)SCJ513; 2013(1)KLT51(SN); AIR2013SCW706; AIR2013SC726
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The sentinel issue that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether the views expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka has got primacy while making appointment to the post of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’).3. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court took the view that under the Act the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka has primacy while tendering advice by the Chief Minister of the State to the Governor. The Court held since, the order passed by the Governor of Karnataka, appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta on 21.1.2012, was without consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court, the same was illegal. The High Court also issued various directions including the direction to the State and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.197-199 OF 201.[Arising out of SLP (Civil) NOs.15658-15660 OF 2012]. Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) .. Appellant Versus Janekere C. Krishna & Ors. etc. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 200-202 OF 201.[Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.16512-16514 OF 2012]. JUDGMENT K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The sentinel issue that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether the views expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka has got primacy while making appointment to the post of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by the Governot of Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short the Act).3. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court took the view that under the Act the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka has primacy while tendering advice by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.151 OF2013TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.152 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.833 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1797 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.932 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1796 OF2013CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.144 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012IN TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.313 OF2014TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.312 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.2524 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.37 OF2015Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2012 & c onnected matters Page 1 of 567 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.220 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.674 OF2015WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.921 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.470 OF2015WRIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.2 OF2020In Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION138OF N.I. ACT1881 ORDER1 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5464 of 2016 pertains to dishonour of two cheques on 27.01.2005 for an amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. The dispute has remained pending for the past 16 years. Concerned with the large number of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter 'the Act') pending at various levels, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (the Chief Justice of India and L. Nageswara Rao, J.) decided to examine the reasons for the delay in disposal of these cases. The Registry was directed to register a Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) captioned as Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae and Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Counsel was requested to assis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1267 OF2012HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. The original appellants who stand substituted by their legal representatives unsuccessfully challenged notifications dated 11.4.2008 and 9.4.2009 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By virtue of the first notification the powers under Section 4 and 17(4) of the Act came to be invoked in regard to the property of the appellants. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition.2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 8.10.2004 coupled with notification under 17(4) 1 was issued in regard to 52.361 hectares of land for the construction of a residential colony under the name of Bulandshhar Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshehar. Plot No.881 and 914 belonging to appellants children were incl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.572-573 OF2019KARAN @ FATIYA APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.1. The present appeals assail the correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.11.2018 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, affirmed the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court and at the same time dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 12. The present appellant was charged for offences under sections 363, 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code1, sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act and sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 17.05.2018 convicted the appellant for all the offences and awarded the following sentences as against each of the offences: Offence under Sentence Fine section 363 IPC5years RI Rs.1,000/- 376(2)(i) IPC Life imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 5(m...
Tag this Judgment!