Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-10-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC539; 2003CriLJ817; (2003)1SCC425
Arun Kumar, J.1. Eight accused persons were charged for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of the 8 accused persons, 2 had been released on temporary bail on different occasions during trial. They did not surrender and could not be arrested. Therefore, their trial had to be separated. They are Rafique s/o Chand Khan and Aslam alias Mangole s/o Salim. The remaining 6 accused viz. Yunis alias Karri alias Kariya. Ballu alias Abdul Nayeem, Abdul Rauf, Daggi alias Rafique, Liyaquatullah and Mohammad Javid were tried and convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC. Abdul Nayeem one of the accused was also convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC while each one of the remaining five was additionally convicted and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. These convictions were as per the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 274/1985 decided on 3rd December, 1987. The six convic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-08-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC548; 2002(2)ALT10(SC); (2002)1CALLT16(SC); (2002)2CompLJ264(SC); [2002(1)JCR397(SC)]; JT2002(1)SC1; (2002)1MLJ139(SC); RLW2002(1)SC161; 2002(1)SCALE43; (2002)2SCC6
1. We are sad that the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India (for short 'the disciplinary committee') despite being the acru statutory body entrusted with the upkeep of the probity of legal profession in India opted to treat a very grave professional misconduct in a comparatively lighter vein. The disciplinary committee held an advocate guilty of breach of trust for misappropriating the asset of a "poor" client. But having held so, the disciplinary committee has chosen to impose a punishment of suspending the advocate from practice for a period of three years.2. The delinquent advocate filed this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). We told him that in the event of this Court upholding the finding of misconduct, he should show cause why the punishment shall not be enhanced to remove his name from the roll of the Bar Council of the State concerned. Notice on that aspect has been accepted by Mr. M. M. Kashyap, learned Counsel for the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-17-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC3279; 2002CriLJ4310; JT2002(7)SC393; 2002(6)SCALE516; (2002)7SCC606
Sema, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and orderpassed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 15th May, 2000in Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 1979 and Government Appeal No. 2819 of1979. Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 1979 had been preferred by Baljore (theappellant before us in Criminal Appeal No. 787/2002), who was convictedunder Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by an order datedIst May, 1979 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, inSessions Trial No. 533 of 1977. Government Appeal No. 2819 of 1979 hadbeen preferred by the State of U.P. against the acquittal judgment by theTrial Court acquitting Mohar, Tikori and Tapsi (Mohar and Tikori areappellants before us in Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2000) for the offencespunishable under Section 302, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Bythe impugned judgment the High Court, after examining the evidence onrecord, dismissed Criminal appeal No. 1659 of 1979 preferred by Baljoreand h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-23-2002
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - 535 U.S. 302 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., ET AL. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1167. Argued January 7, 2002-Decided April 23, 2002 Respondent Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed two moratoria, totaling 32 months, on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan for the area. Petitioners, real estate owners affected by the moratoria and an association representing such owners, filed parallel suits, later consolidated, claiming that TRPA's actions constituted a taking of their property without just compensation. The District Court found that TRPA had not effected a "partial taking" under the analysis set out in Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 ; however, it concluded that the moratoria did const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-16-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC3018; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN202; 2002CriLJ3939; 2002(4)Crimes5(SC); JT2002(6)SC144; 2002(5)SCALE608; (2002)7SCC11; [2002]SUPP1SCR556
Brijesh Kumar, J. 1. Maha Singh and the appellant Hardeep, father and son respectively have been prosecuted for murder of one Rajinder Singh. The Sessions Court on trial of the case acquitted Maha Singh but convicted the present appellant Hardeep under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. Aggrieved by the said order, Hardeep filed an appeal to the High Court against his conviction and sentence and the State of Punjab filed an appeal against the acquittal of Maha Singh as well as against acquittal of Hardeep under Section 302 IPC in place whereof he had been convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC as indicated earlier. A revision was also preferred by Baljeet Singh against the said order passed by the Sessions Court. The High Court by order dated September 20, 2000 allowed the appeal of the State and convicted the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-31-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC355; 2003(51)BLJR158; JT2002(9)SC1; 2003(1)KarLJ1; (2002)8SCC481; (2002)3UPLBEC2817
ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A RELIGIOUS OR LINGUISTIC MINORITY IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 30, WHAT IS TO BE THE UNIT - THE STATE OR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE?74. We now consider the question of the unit for the purpose of determining the definition of 'minority' within the meaning of Article 30(1).75. Article 30(1) deals with religious minorities and linguistic minorities. The opening words of Article 30(1) make it clear that religious and linguistic minorities have been put at par, insofar as that Article is concerned. Therefore, whatever the unit - whether a state or the whole of India - for determining a linguistic minority, it would be the same in relation to a religious minority. India is divided into different linguistic states. The states have been carved out on the basis of the language of the majority of persons of that region. For example, Andhra Pradesh was established on the basis of the language of that region. viz., Telugu. 'Linguistic minority' can, therefore, logically...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-30-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC258; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)100; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)201; 2003CriLJ434; JT2002(9)SC257; 2003(1)KLT3(SC); (2003)1SCC259
Sema, J. 1. Four appellants - Anthony D'Souza, Anil Kumar @ Anil D'souza, Seril D'souza and George D'souza @ Babli were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur and convicted for the offences under Section 143 IPC. Section 396 read with 149 IPC and Section 201 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 143 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 396 read with Section 149 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine SI for three months and to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 149 IPC in default of payment of fine, SI for three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal their conviction and sentence is confirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts are as follows:-3. Deceased Vittal Shetty and Paul were employed as driver and cleaner in a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-08-2002
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams - 534 U.S. 184 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, KENTUCKY, INC. v. WILLIAMS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1089. Argued November 7, 200l-Decided January 8, 2002 Claiming to be unable to perform her automobile assembly line job because she was disabled by carpal tunnel syndrome and related impairments, respondent sued petitioner, her former employer, for failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U. S. C. 12112(b)(5)(A). The District Court granted petitioner summary judgment, holding that respondent's impairment did not qualify as a "disability" under the ADA because it had not "substantially limit[ed]" any "major life activit[y]," 12102(2)(A), and that there was no evidence that respondent had had a record of a substantially limiting impairment or that petitioner had regarded her as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-30-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2877; [2002(95)FLR689]; [2003(1)JCR87(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC591; 2002LabIC2943; 2002(5)SCALE512; (2002)6SCC562; [2002]SUPP1SCR317; 2003(1)SLJ121(SC); (2002)3UPLBEC2281
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. Leave to appeal granted, Consequently, the appeals are taken on file and being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The selections held and the consequential appointments made to the posts of primary school teachers by the Zila Parishads of various districts in the State of Rajasthan during the year 1998-1999 have given rise to these appeals. The full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated 18.11.1999 in Kailash Chand Sharma (Petitioner in first of the appeals corresponding to SLP No. 1824/2000) v. State of Rajasthan and connected Writ Petitions are under challenge in these appeals apart from the Division Bench Judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Naval Kishore Sharma. The full Bench followed its earlier judgment in Deepak Kumar Suthar v. State of Rajasthan (W.P. No. 1917/1995) and disposed of the Writ Petitions on the same terms as in the previous full Bench reference case. At the outset, it may be stated that the judgment of the full Bench rendered on O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-03-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC3620; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)280; 2003CriLJ28; (2003)1GLR330; (2003)1GLR330; JT2002(7)SC529; 2002(7)SCALE201; (2002)8SCC447; [2002]SUPP3SCR46; 2002(2)LC1454(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Deceased Raghunath Yadav was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court at Varanasi for the murder of father of Brijesh Singh-who is one of the absconding accused in the present case. While on bail in appeal, Raghunath Yadav, apprehending danger to his life, came to reside at Mehsana in the State of Gujarat. On 14th June, 1992, Reghunath Yadav was murdered at Mehsana.2. In TADA case Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 of 1990, twelve accused were triedby the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad for offences under Section 302,397, 120B, IPC Section 3(1), 3(3), 3(4) and 5 of the Terrorist AndDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'TADA Act') andunder Section 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Arms Act.3. The charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 was filed on 6th April,1993, against accused Nos. 4 to 6 on 1st July, 1994 against accused Nos.7 to 11 on 15th April, 1996 and against accused No. 12 on 26th November,1996. The charges were that the accused persons and abscondingaccused - ...
Tag this Judgment!