Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1804; JT1993(2)SC1; 1993(1)SCALE489; 1994Supp(1)SCC324; [1993]1SCR891
ORDER1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - which were originally filed in the High Court of Sikkim and now withdrawn by and transferred to this Court under Article 139-A- raise certain interesting and significant issues of the constitutional limitations on the power of Parliament as to the nature of the terms and conditions that it could impose under Article 2 of the Constitution for the admission of new State into the Union of India. These issues arise in the context of the admission of Sikkim into the Indian Union under the Constitution (35th Amendment) Act, 1975 as the 22nd State in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India.2. Earlier, in pursuance of the resolution of the Sikkim Assembly passed by virtue of its powers under the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974, expressing its desires to be associated with the political and economic institutions of India and for the representation of the people of Sikkim in India's Parliamentary system, the Constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(7)SC289; 1997(5)SCALE341; (1997)6SCC573; [1997]Supp3SCR245; 1997(2)LC457(SC)
ORDER1. In this Writ Petition, filed by way of 'Public Interest Litigation', the petitioners have prayed as follows:(a) direct respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to introduce an Official Bill in the Parliament to include Rajasthani language in the VIIIth Schedule to the Constitution; or to sponsor a Private Member's Bill to be introduced on this subject; Or, in the alternative: strike down the Constitutional (71st Amendment) Act of 1992 by which Manipuri, Konkani and Nepali found their places in the VIIIth Schedule, to the Constitution being violative of one of the basic structures of the Constitution, viz. equality'AND(b) pass such order/orders or give such direction/directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.2. To include or not to include a particular language in the VIIIth Schedule is a policy matter of the Union. Generally speaking, the Courts do not, in exercise of their power of judicial review, interfere in policy matters of the State, unless the policy so formulated e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC828; 1964CriLJ705; [1964]2SCR752
Mudholkar, J.1. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Patna High Court affirming the conviction of the appellant under s. 47(a) of the Excise Act and the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for one year and of fine amounting to Rs. 2,000 awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, the substantial question which falls for decision is whether a confession made by the appellant and recorded by the Excise Inspector who was investigating the case is inadmissible by reason of the provisions of s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 2. It is not disputed before us by Mr. Chari that on August 3, 1957, a motor car bearing No. WBC 562 was stopped by the Excise Inspector, R. R. P. Sinha (P.W. 1) on the Bayley Road, near the New Secretariat, Patna, at 10.00 p.m. The car belongs to the appellant's brother Radhey Shyam; but he was not at that moment in the car. The car was then being driven by Jagdish Sah and the appellant was sitting by his side. Four other persons we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Four of the seven accused persons whose conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment has been affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh have filed the instant appeals challenging Judgment and Order dated 30th November, 2009 of the High Court. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the State.2. The short case of the prosecution is that on 05.12.2000 at about 8.55 p.m., Santosh (PW-4) lodged a FIR in the Ambikapur Police Station stating that a short while ago i.e. at about 8.40 p.m. while he was standing in front of his house alongwith deceased Vinod and Amit (PW-13), accused Gopi Ghasia(A-6) and Ranu(A-5) had come there in a state of intoxication. According to the first informant, an altercation took place in the course of which he as well as Vinod had slapped accused Gopi. Enraged, the accused persons went away threatening to kill them. According to the first informant, after about an hour, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.427 OF2014RANJIT KUMAR HALDAR .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.458 OF2015JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) The present appeals arise out of common judgment dated November 25, 2011, maintaining conviction and sentence on the appellants for causing death of Netai Mohanta. An FIR was lodged by Bhola Mohanta (PW-1), brother of the deceased, on December 28, 2004. The original FIR was lodged in Bengali language (Exh. 1), which was later translated in Nepali language. Bhola Mohanta (PW-1) in his statement has stated that his brother had gone to Rabom Power House at Lachung along with Page 1 of 163) his family with the accused Ranjit Haldar to work as Carpenter. He further stated that his deceased brother, Netai Mohanta, was murdered by accused Ranjit Haldar along with his nephew Puran Bandhu Mondal and Mamta Mohanta, wife of the deceased. He also stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]2SCR433
Mudholkar, J.1. This judgment will govern Criminal Appeals Nos. 177 and 178 also. All these three appeals arise out of the same trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr who conducted the trial convicted the appellant, Ramchandra Chaudhary who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1961 for an offence under s. 302 Indian Penal Code. He also convicted Baleshwar Rai alias Nepali Master, appellant in this appeal and Jogendra Chaudhary, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1961 of an offence under s. 302 read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code. He sentenced each of the three to death. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Patna, and sentences of death passed against them were confirmed by it. They have come up before this Court by special leave. 2. The prosecution story is briefly as follows :- On March 17, 1959 at about 8.00 p.m. the chaukidars of the village Fateha had assembled, as usual, in the 'crime center' of the village. Their names are - Anandi Paswan, (d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1579 of 2002, upholding the conviction and the sentence of the appellants vide judgment and order dated 2.11.2002 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2002 (14/2000) passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Laxmangarh, Alwar, convicting the appellants under Sections 395, 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called the IPC). 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: A. Santosh Jagwayan (PW.13) lodged an FIR on 17.12.1996 at 8.30 A.M. that in the intervening night between 16th and 17th December, 1996, on hearing a noise, he sent his Chowkidar Gopal Nepali (deceased) to the roof of his house. Gopal Nepali went upstairs, opened the gate of the roof, and found that 8 to 10 accused persons were trying to enter into the house by breaking upon the door of the roof...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2671; JT1998(5)SC504; 1998(4)SCALE542; (1998)6SCC670
Rajendra Babu, J.1. These three sets of appeals arise out of the orders made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench). The appellants herein are/were employed in the Pension-Paying Offices attached to the respective Ministries in the Embassy of India at Nepal. Writ petitions had been preferred before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and on the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court transferred these petitions for its consideration by an order made on 3-11-1992 in WPs Nos. 591 of 1987, 903 of 1988, 620 of 1991 and 181 of 1987.2. In Civil Appeal No. 4569 of 1996, there are three appellants and they were recruited by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in Nepal and posted in the Pension-Paying Office at Pokhran. While the first appellant was appointed as a lower division clerk on 24-7-1972, Appellant 2 was appointed on 21-10-1964 and Appellant 3 on 2-9-1985. Thus at the time of filing of these appeals, Appellant 1 had put i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2011)11SCC666
1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 1579 of 2002 acquitting the respondents, setting aside their conviction and the sentence passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Laxmangarh, Alwar, dated 2.11.2002 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2002 (14/2000) for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called the IPC).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are as under:A. Santosh Jagwayan (PW.13) lodged an FIR on 17.12.1996 at 8.30 A.M., that in the intervening night between 16th and 17th December, 1996 on hearing the noise, he sent his Chowkidar Gopal Nepali (deceased) to the roof of his house. Gopal Nepali went upstairs and opened the gate of the roof and found that 8 to 10 accused persons were trying to enter into the house by breaking upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC695
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. These appeals filed by special leave granted on different dates arise out of two separate judgments passed by the Allahabad High Court on March 20, 1950. They relate to an occurrence of riot which took place at Manikarnika Ghat, Banaras, on December 9, 1947, at about 1 P. M. They have been heard together and will be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The plan prepared in the case shows that Manikarnika Ghat has a tank known as the Manikarnika Kund. To the south of the Kund is a narrow lane about 7 feet wide and towards further south is a stone platform called 'Takhat Hazara'. To the east of Takhat Hazara is the Takhat of Gajanand. Towards the east of Gajanand's Takhat is the Sindhia Ghat and on the west of Takhat Hazara is a stone-paved platform and to the west of this platform there is a place called 'Charan Paduka'. To the south of the platform there is Chunawali-Marhi where Anjaninandan's Takhats are kept. To the west of Takhat Hazara there is a place called dasg...
Tag this Judgment!