Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1933; 2006CriLJ2464; JT2006(5)SC138; 2006(4)SCALE606; (2006)9SCC428
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant herein was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is as under:A First Information Report was lodged by the informant Lal Hare Murari Nath Sahdeo at about 14.00 hrs. on 19.11.1985 alleging that at about 07.30 A.M. on the previous day i.e. 18.11.1985 Fagua Mahto, deceased, took his five bullocks for grazing along with the cattle of other villagers, as he was a herdsman. He brought the bullocks earlier after grazing. The informant is said to have not found two of his bullocks in the said evening. He enquired thereabout; whereupon Fagua Mahto informed him that two oxen were taken by Jitendra Ram @ Jitu Harizan, the appellant herein for thrashing paddy. He went to the house of the accused, who denied to have taken the said two oxen. Lakhan Lohar (PW-13), however, at about 07.30 P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990(2)WLN146
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur declined to accept the application filed on behalf of the accused petitioner under the Juvenile Act, 1986, (for short 'the Act'), that as the accused petitioner had attained the age of 16 years at the time occurrence or even at the time of the application was tiled and the learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction and the case should be tried only by the juvenile court establish ed under the Act The learned Session judge had dismissed the application under his order dated 20-11-1989.2. It was contended' by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that sufficient documentary proof had been furnished to the learned 'Sessions Judge that the date of birth of the accused petitioner is 31-12-197 3and as such on the day of the occurrence i.e. 16-12-1989 he bad not even attained the i.e of 16 years and had not even attained that age on the date when the application was filed, but the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application.3. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Gwalior
(1) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against an order dated 13 th May 2011 in Criminal Revision No. 21/2011 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Guna, M.P. allowing thereby the revision filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh while setting aside the order passed in Criminal Case No.217/10 dated 23/11/10 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna and remanding the case to that court for redetermine the age of the accused after following the procedure laid down in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2007. (2) The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that a Crime No.217/10 was registered against the accused-petitioner Govind for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 325 of I.P.C. by police station Dharnabda for causing death of one Hukum Singh and injuring persons namely, Geetabai, Ramjane, Bana Sahab Madurn on 22 n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
P.K. Sarin, J.1. The bail petition of the petitioner has been rejected twice by this Court. However, while rejecting (he second bail petition of the present petitioner on 16.11.1993 in Cr. Misc. No. 11697 of 1993, this Court directed the learned Magistrate to constitute a Medical Board and after taking into consideration the legal evidence as would be forthcoming for determination of the age of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate was directed to pass such order as he may deem fit and proper. This direction was made because it appeared that the point as to age of the petitioner was not at all considered and the petitioner raised the plea that he was a juvenile. It appears that thereafter the learned Magistrate determined the age of the petitioner on the basis of the examination report of the Medical Board and the age of the petitioner was found to be 14 to 16 years. However, he was not released on bail. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner moved a petition for bail (under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(2)BomCR482; 1986MhLJ391
A.D. Tated, J.1. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 29th November, 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1979 ordering the appeal memo to be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the proper Court.2. One juvenile boy, son of the respondent No. 1 Kisansingh, was charged with the offence under section 384 read with section 114 I.P.C. for having extorted the amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- belonging to the petitioner complainant Baburao R. Maskar by giving threats to the complainant's son Suresh (P.W. 2). During investigation a cash amount of Rs. 42,000/- in 42 currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- each, which is marked as Exhibit 'B', and the amount of Rs. 341/-, which is marked as Exhibit 'G', and the property alleged to have been purchased with the extorted amount, which is marked as Exhibit 'F' (Collectively), was recovered from the house of the respondent No. 1. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate presi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR263
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Very unusual and unprecedented circumstances have given rise to filing of these two motions, and the complex issues arising there from are required to be answered not only by purely legal approach but with human considerations and bearing in mind welfare of two minor girls. The facts to be stated in hereafter would unfold the traumatic experience suffered by innocent people involved in this episode and would also highlight the precautions which must be taken before declaring a child as 'destitute' under the provisions of Bombay Children Act, 1948.2. Jamnibai is a resident of Village Chulane in Bassein Taluka of Thane District, and she was residing there with her husband and two minor daughters Gulab and Laxmi. Both Jamnibai and her husband were working as labourers collecting fire-wood from the nearby forests. Gulab was born on January 12, 1975, while Laxmi on January 2, 1979. On March 19, 1980 Jamnibai with her husband left for work early in the morning leaving the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(1)MPLJ529
ORDERDeepak Misra, J.1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14-8-1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Berasia, Bhopal which has been affirmed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 138/96 whereby the prayer of the petitioner to treat him as a juvenile has been refused. It is also worth mentioning here that the petitioner has also questioned the propriety of the order dated 2-1-1997 passed by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (the learned trial Judge) wherein he has declined to entertain the prayer of the petitioner for treating him as a juvenile.2. The facts as have been undraped in the petition are that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in connection with a crime instituted for offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 324/149 of Indian Penal Code. He wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(4)JCR704(Jhr)]
ORDERVishnudeo Narain, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This revision at the instance of the petitioner stands directed against the impugned judgment dated 8.1.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2003 by Shri Prakash Chandra Agrawal, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No. 3, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the order dated 19.11.2003 passed in G.R. Case No. 3195 of 2002 refusing the prayer for bail of the petitioner was affirmed.3. It appears that the said petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence Under Sections 147, 148. 323, 384, 435 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 27 of the Arms Act besides Under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act in Silli Police Station Case No. 43 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 3195 of 2002 along with other co-accused persons and in the said occurrence the Jeep belonging, to the construction company was burnt when the demand of the levy amount was not fulfilled as demanded by the banned terrorists organiz...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC232; JT1986(1)SC950; 1986(2)SCALE913; (1987)1SCC66; [1987]1SCR383; 1987(1)LC501(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, CJ.Crl. M.P. No. 3141/861. This application has been filed by the Indian Council for Child Welfare for obtaining a direction that when it is required to act as a scrutinising agency by the Court, a certain amount should be directed to be paid to it for the scrutinising services rendered by it, since the scrutinising services would require employment of staff and other necessary expenditure. Though this application is made only by the Indian Council for Child Welfare, we apprehend that all other scrutinising agencies must also be facing the same difficulty. We would therefore direct that when the Court makes an order appointing a foreign parent as guardian of a child with a view to its eventual adoption in the foreign country, the Court will provide that such amount shall be paid to the scrutinising agency for its services as the Court thinks reasonable, having regard to the nature of the case and the extent and volume of the services rendered by the scrutinising agency. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1960CriLJ927
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused Anthony alias Bakthavatsalu, a young boy aged about 15 years who has been convicted Under Section 376, IPC and directed to be detained in the Senior Certified School, Chingleput, for a period of three years, by the Court of Juveniles, Egmore, Madras. When this appeal was admitted, our learned brother Somasundaram, J. prepared a Memorandum pointing out that under Rule 7 of the rules framed Under Section 44 of the Madras Children Act, the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) for the trial of summons cases has to be observed by the Juvenile Court in the tria1 of all cases, whether summons or warrant cases, but that this provision did not render it clear how precisely the Juvenile Court should proceed to try an offender for an offence exclusively triable by Court of Session, such as the present offence Under Section 376, IPC The learned Judge observed that the procedure to be followed by the Juvenile Court...
Tag this Judgment!