Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)195; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)58; 2001CriLJ476; 2000(7)SCALE599
1. The accused is in appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court in affirmation of the finding of guilt under Section 304 Part-I, IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. During the course of hearing learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, contended that the appeal should be restricted to the question of sentence only: The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant however, contended that question of treating the appeal in any restricted manner does not and cannot arise by reason of subsequent grant of leave without attaching any condition thereto. The records depict that on 20th March, 1998, this Court directed issuance of notice limited to the question of sentence only. Subsequently, however, after about eight months, the matter was placed in the list for hearing but by reason of the objection this Court was pleased to grant special leave in the matter. The learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeals conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2938; 2009CriLJ2957; JT2009(6)SC352; 2009(4)MPHT339(SC); 2009(7)SCALE19; (2009)6SCC652; 2009(7)LC3473(SC); 2009AIRSCW3469; 2009(3)LHSC2010; 2009(4)KCCRSN260; 2009CriLJ2957
Altamas Kabir, J. 1. In this Special Leave Petition we are called upon to consider whether a default sentence can be imposed when compensation is awarded under Sub-section (3) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In the instant case, the petitioner stood convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court-II, Pathanamthitta, of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs. 8,25,000/- as compensation to the complainant/Respondent No. 1 herein under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Cr.P.C.in short) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. On appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 41/2006), the Additional District and Sessions Judge by her order dated 27th March, 2007 confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. In revision, being Criminal Revision Petition No. 1836 of 2007-D, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1996)ACC536; 1996ACJ1125; 1996IIIAD(SC)267; [1996]86CompCas522(SC); JT1996(4)SC32; 1996(2)SCALE845; (1996)3SCC446; [1996]3SCR440; 1996(1)LC838(SC)
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The Division Bench was hearing appeals against three judgments delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, arising upon six claim petitions. Four claim petitions were filed to recover compensation for the death of four persons and two for injuries sustained. The four deceased and two injured persons were passengers in a bus owned by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant, when it was involved in an accident at 10.30 p.m. on 6th May, 1987, on the Bangalore-Mysore road. The accident occurred when the bus hit a truck trailer coming from the opposite direction. Upon the trailer was mounted a rear dumper. (The rear dumper is a vehicle used to carry and dump earth from its rear end.) Subsequent to the collision, the bus moved 150 feet, collided with a tree on the left of the road and turned turtle. The bus driver was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007AIRSCW7149; 2008ACJ295; AIR2008SC403; 2008(1)ALD109(SC); 2008(1)AWC257(SC); 2008(1)MhLj501; (2008)149PLR227; 2007(13)SCALE113; 2007AIRSCW7149; AIR2008SC403; (2008)3SCC(Cri)385; 2008ACJ295
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that though the liability of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') was limited to Rs. 50,000/- yet it was to first pay the amount awarded to the claimants and recover amount in excess of Rs. 50,000/- from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:One Karan Singh, conductor of the bus no.DEP-3514 lost his life in an accident which took place on 14.7.1984. The bus belonged to M/s Mewat Transport Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'insured'). The bus was driven by deceased Karan Singh and it dashed in a tanker no.HRG-2852. The impact was so intense and severe that several persons sitting in the bus died, while many others sustained injuries. The widow, minor children and parents of aforesaid Karan Singh lodge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC985; JT2007(2)SC243; (2007)2LLJ549SC; 2007(2)SCALE328; (2007)3SCC73; 2007(3)SLJ20(SC); 2007AIRSCW752;
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The writ appeal was directed against the common judgment and order dated 7.5.2002 passed by learned Single Judge wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Management of Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (in short the 'AIDC') was allowed while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Both the writ petitions were directed against the Award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam, at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'). The appellant claims to be the Union of employees of M/s Industrial Papers (Assam) Ltd. (in short the 'IPAL'). Learned Single Judge held that there is a clear cut finding in the Award to the effect that workmen were not employees of AIDC, and therefore, the question of giving them benefit as was done by the Labour Court did ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3228; (2007)3CALLT97(SC); 105(2008)CLT112(SC); 2008CriLJ325; JT2007(11)SC65; 2007(10)SCALE637; (2007)8SCC578; (2007)3Crimes382(SC); 2007AIRSCW5880
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment of life awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 51/2001.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 13.2.1994 round about 2.30 p.m. a young girl called Bharati Mondal was returning home, carrying a bundle of 'Khari' on her head. As the 'Khari' struck on the body of the appellant Kulesh Mondal, the accused Naresh Mondal (acquitted by the High Court) and his brother appellant- Kulesh Mondal hurled filthy languages at her. Shocked by such behavior of the accused, the informant Naren Mondal raised his strong protest. There ensued bickering amongst them. It was followed by hurling of brickbats at the informant. While such things had been going on, one Chakku ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2013(1)CTC614; 2013(1)KLT56(SN); AIR2013SCW320; AIR2013SC329
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant (original accused 2 – A2) was tried along with his father Venkatray Narayan Anvekar (original accused 1 – A1) and his mother Smt. Vidyabai Venkatray Anvekar (original accused 3 – A3) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II at Karwar in Sessions Case No.59/02. By his judgment dated 30/03/2007 learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. The State of Karnataka carried an appeal to the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad from the said judgment. The High Court by the impugned judgment confirmed the acquittal of A1 and A3. The High Court, however, reversed the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC. For offence punisha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC144; (1951)53BOMLR472; (1951)IMLJ314(SC); [1950]1SCR979; [1950]SuppSCR979
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay. Although the record is heavy and many points were argued in the trial court and in the court of appeal at Bombay, the important point argued before us is only one. 2. The appellants (plaintiffs) are a firm of commission agents in Bombay. The respondents (defendants) were their constituents. Accounts between the parties in respect of their dealings were made up and settled up to the 30th of October, 1943. Piecegoods and yarn continued to be purchased and consigned by the plaintiffs to the defendants' joint family firm thereafter. One bale of piecegoods was purchased and despatched in November, 1943. In January, 1944, restrictions were imposed against the consignment of piecegoods and/or yarn outside Bombay by rail without obtaining the necessary previous permit from the Textile Commissioner at Bombay. On or about the 6th February, 1944, Mohanlal of the defendants' joint family firm came to Bombay and the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1100; 1975CriLJ933; (1975)4SCC116
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act of 1970 was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of the charges of having committed the murder of his mistress Veeramma and of having attempted to commit suicide. On appeal by the Public Prosecutor the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has convicted the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 309 of the Code and awarded a concurrent sentence of one year's simple imprisonment. 2. The case is a simple one and in our opinion there was no scope for entertaining any doubt in regard to the prosecution version of the occurrence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Judge was not only wrong but perverse. The High Court has rightly convicted the appellant. 3. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the occurrence which took place on the 29th May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2071; 1976CriLJ1642; (1976)1SCC163; [1976]2SCR274; 1976(8)LC115(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is limited only to the question of sentence. The appellant has been sentenced to death for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The question is : Should the extreme penalty of death be commuted to one of life imprisonment? To answer the question it is necessary to state a few facts.2. The appellant and a few others were tried in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Union for offences under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that the appellant, Sheo Dayal, Mihi lal, Dularey and Mewa Lal had formed an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of its common object, the appellant had intentionally caused the death of one Ram Kumar by inflicting on him a severe injury with a banka severing his head from the body and then carried away the head in an angaucha in a most brutal and inhuman fashion. On this finding, the learned Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!