Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-24-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)301; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)472; JT2008(8)SC411; 2008(10)SCALE536; 2008AIRSCW5578; 2008(3)Crimes141; 2008(4)LH(SC)2972
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the appeal filed by the State of U.P. questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1993. Two persons i.e. the present appellant and his wife Smt. Kapoori Devi were tried for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') for the murder of one Jagat Singh (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). The trial Court directed acquittal of the appellant primarily on the ground that there was discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, independent witnesses were not examined. In appeal filed by the State, the High Court held that while the acquittal of Smt. Kapoori Devi (A-2) was correct, the same was not sustainable so far as the present appellant is concerned.2. Background facts in a n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-14-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC600; RLW2009(2)SC1364; 2008AIRSCW7744; 2008(6)LHSC4251
..... order of acquittal passed by the trial court in sessions trial no. 379 / 1996, whereby, appellants asif mamu and mukhtiyar malik @ javed, besides accused rajiulla khan and sheru @ sher khan nepali [in short 'asif', mukhtiyar', 'rajiulla' and 'sheru', respectively] were acquitted. criminal appeal no. 718 of 2007 arises out of the said common judgment of conviction passed by the high court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-02-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ942; 2008(15)SCALE400; 2008(6)LHSC4383; AIR2009SC958; 2009AIRSCW25
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Both these appeals arising out of the common judgment and order dated 09.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 2004 of 1981, were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. By the impugned order, the High Court while setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated June 5, 1981 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 1980, convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.2. Brief facts of the case are that Subedar Singh (P.W. 1) has got three sons, namely, Jai Karan Singh, Shiv Karan Singh and Ram Karan Singh. P.W. 1 lodged F.I.R. (Ex. Ka.1) on 24.07.1980 at 6:15 a.m. at Police Station, Sumerpur situated at a distance of about 15 kms. from village Patyora, alleging therein that in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-07-2008
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR141(SC)]; 2008(9)SCALE630; (2008)7SCC334; 2008AIRSCW5261; 2008(7)SCC334; (2008)3SCC(Cri)94
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High court dismissing the MAC Appeal No. 219/07 and order dismissing the application for review.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent-Bhupinder filed a claim petition stating that he was injured in an accident where scooter bearing No. DL 3S 7420 was involved. According to the respondent the accident occurred on 2.8.1995 at 11.20 a.m. He sustained injuries. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Delhi allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs. 57,635/- alongwith 6% interest thereon. Appellant was impleaded in the claim petition as the sole respondent. Stand of the appellant was that his vehicle was not offending vehicle and in any event he was not driving the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time as claimed. He relied on certificate issued by his employer which clearly indicated that at the relevant point of time he was wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-26-2008
District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA etal. v . HELLER certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 07290.Argued March 18, 2008Decided June 26, 2008 District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D.C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-28-2008
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. - 07-21 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CRAWFORD etal. v . MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 0721.Argued January 9, 2008Decided April 28, 2008* After Indiana enacted an election law (SEA 483) requiring citizens voting in person to present government-issued photo identification, petitioners filed separate suits challenging the laws constitutionality. Following discovery, the District Court granted respondents summary judgment, finding the evidence in the record insufficient to support a facial attack on the statutes validity. In affirming, the Seventh Circuit declined to judge the law by the strict standard set for poll taxes in Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections , 383 U. S. 663 , finding the burden on voters offset by the benefit of reducing the risk of fraud. Held: The judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-22-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3200; 2008(10)SCALE292; (2008)11SCC637
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine with default stipulation. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo 15 days' RI. Additionally, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI and pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Similarly, in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year. In appeal, by the impugned judgment, High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:On 3.8.1999, Vaje Singh (PW-1) lodged a First Information Repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE249
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The appellant and his father Baldu had filed the appeal before the High Court questioning the correctness of the conviction and imposition of sentence as done by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1980. The appellant's father Baldu died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned.3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:Kali Charan, first informant (PW-1), his father Lachhi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and his mother Smt. Ram Kunwar were returning after ploughing the land of Chandra Bhan with their bullocks on 28.7.1980 through th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-18-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC204; 2009CriLJ378; 2008(12)SCALE604; 2008AIRSCW7139
Altamas Kabir, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 1st December, 2004, passed by the Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants herein (Criminal Appeal No. 851/01) against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Almora, in ST No. 36 of 1987, convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 394 Indian Penal Code. One of the accused, Ratan Singh, died during the trial which abated against him and continued against the other accused persons.2. According to the prosecution, on 26th February, 1987, the deceased Bhupal Singh @ Joga Singh of village Sain Bagaria, District Almora, Uttaranchal, went to the Mela held at village Dabra on the occasion of Shiv Ratri along with his wife and two children. He had taken an amount of Rs. 3,000/- with him for purchasing two bullocks and a goat. While at the Mela, he met Gusain Singh and remained at the Mela with his wife and children till 4.30 p.m. when he sent them back to their v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1738; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)424; 2008BusLR403(SC); [2008]143CompCas97(SC); (2008)2CompLJ496(SC); 2008(3)SCALE650; (2008)6SCC750; [2008]83SCL451(SC); 2008(1)LC583(SC); 2008AIRSCW2402; 2008(2)Supreme502; 2008(4)KCCRSN299
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills Private Limited is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (For short, 'the Act'). Out of the 2,84,000 equity shares in the company of Rs. 10/- each, 2,83,999 shares are held by the first respondent and his son (appellant herein). The remaining one share is held by M/s. Visva Bharathi Textiles Private Limited, shares in which again is held equally by the first respondent and the appellant. Thus, for all intent and purport, all shares of the company are held by the appellant and the first respondent. 3. Whereas the first respondent is the Managing Director of the Company, the appellant is the Director thereof. Indisputably the parties are not on good terms. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed an application purported to be under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act alleging several acts of oppression on the part of appellant herein before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!