Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-22-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC552; JT2008(9)SC263; 2008(11)SCALE607; 2008(3)Crimes343; 2008(6)Supreme256
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court accepting the appeal filed by the respondents who were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The High Court held that if on taking overall view of the case right of self defence is made out or looks probable from the evidence on record, that right should not be construed narrowly because the right of self defence is a very valuable right and it has a social purpose.2. Background facts as projected by prosecution in a nutshell are as follows:The incident occurred on 12.7.1978 at about 5.30 a.m. The respondents 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of Sheo Balak Misra. On the aforesaid date and time the accused respondents armed with knife and lathi respectively arrived at the `Gotha' of the Mohan Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') and accused Hari Shanker started beating the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(12)SCALE301; 2008AIRSCW6342; 2008(8)SCC660
..... . on the basis of the misinterpretation of appellant's remarks as reported in certain sections of the media, the complainants also alleged that the appellant had deliberately insulted the 'gorkhali/nepali' community and hence he was liable to be prosecuted for an offence under section 153a of ipc. in furtherance of fir no. 125/2007, the inspector-in-charge, sadar p .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-21-2008
Reported in : 2008(13)SCALE398; (2009)2SCC47
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 3015-3016/2005. The appellants in these two appeals are the kith and kin of some persons killed in the Godhra Train Burning incident and in the Akshardham Temple attack. They2 have challenged the judgment dated 13.4.2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos. 1103 & 1105/2005 filed by them. For convenience, the appellants in these two appeals will be referred to as the `relatives of victims'.2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1113/2005, 1498- 1500/2005, 359/2006, 734/2007, 735/2007 and 736/2007 are persons who have been charged in respect of offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, in terrorism related cases. In these appeals, they have also challenged the said judgment dated 13.4.2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos. 1103 & 1105 of 2005, and other judgments of the said High Court and the judgment of the Bombay High Court which follow the said decision. The appellants in these appeals wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC1411; 2009(3)KarLJ529; 2008(16)SCALE1; 2009AIRSCW871; 2009(1)LHSC385
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant is before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.6.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1999 reversing a judgment of acquittal dated 15.9.1998 in S.C. No. 30/91 passed in his favour by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore.2. There is a small village `Rammanahalli' situate near the town of Mysore. It has two streets called `Kelaginakeri' and `Melinakeri'. A cinema tent was put therein. There were two groups in the village residing in one or the other said streets. One group intended the owner of cinema/theatre to exhibit films starring Dr. Rajkumar and the other group asked them to exhibit the films starring Sri Vishnuvardhan. They had been asking the proprietor of the theatre to release the films in which their favourite stars were acting. The occurrence took place at about 8.00 a.m. on 9.12.1990.3. The prosecution case is as under:Maruchhaia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-21-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)LHSC4219
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which by the impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') while setting aside the conviction under Section 398 IPC as done by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, in connection with Sessions trial No. 6 (1) of 1997.2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:On 1st August, 1996, at about 11.40 in the night the present appellant along with others came in a white Ambassador car having fake number plate in front of the grocery shop under the name and style 'Prabhat Stores' situated at 7/1, Bampass Road, Calcutta-29. The persons who came in the Ambassador car were armed with weapons like pistol, nepala etc. and they entered into the grocery shop and demanded key of the cash box from the proprietor of the shop namely Gulab Mehata (hereinafter referred to as the `dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-18-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC1290; 2008BusLR335(SC); (2008)2MLJ1140(SC); 2008(3)SCALE24; (2008)4SCC380; [2008]82SCL435(SC); 2008(1)LC339(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Both these appeals have been instituted against common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Original Side) dated February 20/21, 2006 in Appeal Nos. 449-450 of 2005 in Company Petition No. 857 of 2004. First appeal has been filed by Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. while the second appeal is filed by Chloro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals, in brief as noted by the Division Bench of the High Court are as follows. 4. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., USA (hereinafter referred to as "Severn Trent") filed a petition for winding up the Capital Controls (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') on just and equitable grounds under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Company Judge by his order dated 21st April 2005 admitted the company petition. Aggrieved thereby two appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2300; JT2008(7)SC614; 2008(9)SCALE787; (2008)8SCC708; 2008AIRSCW6034; 2008(8)SCC708; 2008(3)Crimes160
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals have been instituted by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4126 of 2006 and companion matters. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed revision petitions filed by the appellants herein as also by the State of Kerala.3. To understand the issue raised in the present appeals, few relevant facts may be stated:4. The appellants are partners of M/s LIS, Ernakulam, a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of lotteries and magazines after collecting advance money. They floated a scheme known as 'LIS Deepasthambham Scheme'. The scheme was simple in its conception. A person has to pay Rs. 625/- and purchase one unit of lotteries from the promoters. The promoters will make use of Rs. 350/- to purchase 35 lottery tickets of the Kerala State Government each of Rs. 10/- for the unit holder for the next 35 weeks. If the unit ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(11)SCALE504; 2008(2)LC1133(SC); 2008AIRSCW5914
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. These appeals, which are filed by the complainant, are against an order of acquittal passed by the Patna High Court on 9th August, 2000, whereby the Division Bench acquitted the respondents while allowing the appeals filed by them questioning the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge II, Gaya on 22nd December, 1997 in Sessions Tr. Nos. 177/1995 and 134/1995.2. Satendra Sharma, respondent No. 1 in Crl. Appeal 553/2001 was tried for offences punishable under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 while Pankaj Sharma and Ramakant Sharma, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Crl. Appeal 554/2001 were tried for offences punishable under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of one Ajay Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). The trial court found that all the three respondents are guilty and sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-16-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC218; JT2008(8)SC184
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Validity of orders of recession of allotment of industrial plots and resumption thereof by the appellants herein is in question in this batch of appeals.3. With a view to appreciate the questions involved herein, the factual matrix of the matter, however, would be noticed from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14074 of 2006.4. Appellant - Corporation is a public sector undertaking. Its principal function is allotment of industrial plots belonging to the State of Haryana. It was set up as a catalyst for promoting economic growth and accelerating the pace of industrialization. It not only provides financial assistance to the industrial concerns by way of term loans; it also develops infrastructure for setting up of industrial units. The Corporation also invests money in developing the industrial estates at strategic locations. In exercise of its functions, it also allots industrial plots to entrepreneurs for setting up their industries on 'no profi...
Tag this Judgment!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!