Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jun-13-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)405; 2008(56)BLJR2244; 2008(9)SCALE415; (2008)6SCC772; 2008(2)LC757(SC); 2008AIRSCW4288; 2008(6)SCC772; (2008)3SCC(Cri)133; 2008(3)Crimes24; 2008(3)AICLR618; 2008(4)Supreme497; 2008(4)LH(SC)2334
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (in short the `Act') and sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation. Two other persons faced trial alongwith the appellant for offences punishable under Section 13 read with Section 14 of the Act. While co- accused Bagwan Sahai Sain acquitted, the other accused Smt. Sunita alias Sonu alias Nagma convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:SHO Vidhadhar Nagar, Jaipur acting upon the information of informant on 13.1.2004, the then SHO Richpal Singh alongwith Superintendent of Police reached at Vidhyadhar Nagar bus stand No. 15 and v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-19-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4587; 2008(12)SCALE608; 2008AIRSCW6273; 2008(5)LH(SC)3775.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Chattisgarh High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the appeal was to the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Raipur, in S.T. No. 53/2000 who found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the `Atrocities Act') Life sentence was imposed in respect of the offence 302 IPC, however, no separate sentence was imposed for the offence relatable to Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.3. Prosecution version, in a nutshell, is as follows:On 20.8.2000 at about 6 p.m. Bholaram (PW-3) lodged a report in the Police Station Basna before Station House Officer D.K. Sharma (PW-9) to the effect that today at about 3 p.m. when he along with his father was digging groundnuts in their agricultural...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-27-2008
Reported in : JT2008(7)SC194; 2008(9)SCALE166; (2008)8SCC781; 2008AIRSCW4618; 2008(3)AICLR651
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 7792 of 2006 and 7791 of 2006 filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'Cr.P.C.'] in Case Crime No. 412 of 2005 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'the IPC'] and in Case Crime No. 21 of 2006 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506, 420 IPC respectively registered against them at Police Station, Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad and seeking for entrustment of further investigation of the aforesaid cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation [for short 'the CBI'].3. This case would reveal a chequered history of legal battle being fought by the appellants - the students of Santosh Medical College on one hand and the authorities of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-19-2008
Reported in : JT2009(1)SC562; 2009(1)SCALE551; (2009)3SCC35
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby and whereunder an order dated 22..12.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 151 of 1995 as also the office memorandum dated 22.12.2000 were set aside and the appellants herein were directed to consider the case of absorption of the respondents in terms of the scheme by considering the question of relaxation with respect to their length of experience in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9 thereof. It was furthermore directed that benefit with respect to breaks shall also be given to the petitioners as had been done in the case of other researchers who had been absorbed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.Appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has laboratories situated in different parts of the country. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-07-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC581; (2009)1SCC482
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Appellant-Ratan Kumar Vishwas has filed an Appeal No. 6636 of 2006 questioning his conviction the offence punishable under Sections 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short `the Act'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of rupees two lacs with default stipulation. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar has found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.3. Brief facts of the case as projected by prosecution are that a secret and reliable information on 5.3.2004 was received by the complainant an officer of the N.C.B., Varanasi that huge quantity of Charas was being brought from Nepal to Kanpur in Truck No. UHN 9137 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1104
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is filed by Moorthy son of Kuppan against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1991 by which the appellant was convicted under section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:-PW1, Palaniammal and her son, Murugan, the deceased in this case were in possession and enjoyment of a porambok land and regarding that there was a dispute at the instance of the accused claiming a right to enjoyment and possession to the said property. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers and the 3rd accused has two young children called Senthil and Subhash. The incident had taken place on 18.5.1988 in the evening at about 4.30 p.m. Even on that morning there was an incident in which the parents of accused 1 and 2 and the wife of the 2nd accused sustained injuries which resulted in a complaint against the deceased and others before th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-16-2008
Reported in : 2008ACJ747; AIR2008SC1385; 2008(2)ALD69(SC); 2008(56)BLJR790; 2008(5)BomCR373; (2008)1CompLJ185(SC); I(2008)CPJ56(SC); 2008(1)CTC392; JT2008(1)SC399; (2008)2MLJ662(SC); 2008AIRSCW855; 2008SC1385; 2008(2)SCC1; 2008ACJ747; 2008(1)ICC705; 2008(1)SCALE442; 2008(1)LH(SC)337.
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'Commission') rejecting the appellant's complaint (O.P. No. 12/1996) under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Act' for short).Undisputed facts2. On 9.5.1995, the appellant, an unmarried woman aged 44 years, visited the clinic of the first respondent (for short 'the respondent') complaining of prolonged menstrual bleeding for nine days. The respondent examined and advised her to undergo an ultrasound test on the same day. After examining the report, the respondent had a discussion with appellant and advised her to come on the next day (10.5.1995) for a laparoscopy test under general anesthesia, for making an affirmative diagnosis. 3. Accordingly, on 10.5.1995, the appellant went to the respondent's clinic with her mother. On admission, the appellant's signatures were taken on (i) admission and discharge card; (ii) consent f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1292; 2008(3)CTC97; [2008(3)JCR176(SC)]; JT2008(5)SC1; (2008)3MLJ1105(SC); 2008(5)SCALE1; (2008)6SCC1; 2008AIRSCW2899; 2008(3)Supreme331; 2008(2)LH(SC)1534
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Reservation for admission in educational institutions or for public employment has been a matter of challenge in various litigations in this Court as well as in the High Courts. Diverse opinions have been expressed in regard to the need for reservation. Though several grounds have been raised to oppose any form of reservation, few in independent India have voiced disagreement with the proposition that the disadvantaged sections of the population deserve and need 'special help'. But there has been considerable disagreement as to which category of disadvantaged sections deserve such help, about the form this help ought to take and about the efficacy and propriety of what the government has done in this regard. 2. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who presided over the Congress Expert Committee emphasized before the Constituent Assembly that the removal of socio-economic inequalities was the highest priority. He believed that only this could make India a casteless and cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(121)ECC1; 2008(157)LC1(SC); JT2008(8)SC426; 2008(10)SCALE498; 2008AIRSCW5954.
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final judgment and order No. 1-1255/KOL/2001 dated 23rd November, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.2. The three Bills of Entry which are the bone of contentions in the present case are detailed below:(i) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2256 dated 30th April, 1998, per Vessel X-Press Singapore Voy-257, Rot. No. 258/98 dated 7th April, 1998, Line No. 97, Country of origin - India, Goods 135 cartons 2/64 NM Merino Wool 100% Raw White on paper cone, Assessable Value - Rs. 36,63,829/-. (ii) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2440 dated 29th May, 1998, per Vessel S.S. Acacia V. 818, Rot No. 370/98, Line No. 154, Country of Origin - India, Goods - 20 pallets Polyester 100% Semi Dull Ring Spun Yarn for weaving NE 24/2, Assessable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-08-2008
Reported in : JT2008(8)SC650; 2008(11)SCALE233; 2008AIRSCW6322
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Challenging the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.9.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 1980 acquitting Kishanpal Singh, Suresh Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 & 10), the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:On 21.6.1978 at 3.30 p.m., the sixteen accused persons gathered at the door of Gyan Singh and made a criminal conspiracy for killing Kaptan Singh and Raj Mahesh as they were harassing them unnecessarily. At about 4.00 P.M., Onkar Singh, Kishanpal Singh, Vijaipal Singh, Suresh Singh, Naresh Singh, Daulat Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 1to10) reached at the place of occurrence with firearms. Onkar Singh (Accused No. 1), Naresh Singh (Accused No. 5), Daulat Singh (Accused No. 6) and Sheodan Singh (Accused No. 9) had guns while others had country-ma...
Tag this Judgment!