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 : Guwahati
A.B. Pal, J.1. The petitioner Shri Nath Singh Mahar was enrolled in Assam Rifles on 15.3.1975. Before employment he was married to one Ganga Debi. On 8.3.1985, after a period of more than ten years in service, he contracted a second marriage with one Smti. Sarda Devi when his first wife was alive. This being a misconduct he faced a disciplinary proceeding initiated in January, 1996. Two charges were framed against him. The first charge is that in 1985 when he was Naik Subadar he gave a false declaration that his first wife Ganga Devi died on 15.10.1984. The said declaration was published in the Unit BRO as 42.9.85. Thereafter he married Smt. Sarda Devi. But from the letter dated 19.1.93 of Smt. Ganga Devi, forwarded by Soldier Welfare and Rehabilitation Branch, it came to light that the petitioner gave a false declaration which is unbecoming of a government servant. The second charge is that he contracted a second marriage on 8.3.1985 with Smt. Sarda Devi when his first marriage with ...
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 : Patna
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.1. While exercising power under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide order dated 22.2.2008 contained in annexure 10 the State Election Commissioner has disqualified the petitioner from holding the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Reodha in the district of Darbhanga. This order has been challenged therefore in the present writ application.2. Some basic facts are not under dispute. Petitioner's father is a Nepali resident as well as its citizen. The mother is alleged to be the woman of Indian origin married to petitioner's father. Subsequently after matrimony it is stated that she too acquired Nepali citizenship voluntarily. Petitioner after coming of age entered into a matrimony with one Mithilesh Prasad in the year, 1988. She was supposed to be of 18 years of age. Based on the matrimony and her residence her name was entered into the electoral roll of Jale Legislative Assembly. According to her, her nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
N. Ibotombi Singh, J1. Six accused were put on trial for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 and 302/34, Penal Code, before the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No. 3 (K)/74. The learned Sessions Judge convicted 4 accused, namely, Cendra, Brahma, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 47 (J) of 1975, Karendra Nath Brahma, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 48 (J) of 1975, Shri Magon Basumatary, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 49 (J) of 1975 and Shri Janaki Basumatary, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 50(J) of 1975 for offence of murder of one Abhiram Barguari of village Singimari punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year each. They were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201, Penal Code and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a...
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 : Delhi
Reported in : 1996(39)DRJ353
Arun Kumar, J. (1) 'DIE appellant was convicted for the offences under sections 452, 302 I.P.C. and under section 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of a young girl named Kavita by the Addl.Scssions Judge, Delhi vide impugned judgment dated 22nd April 1992. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code For the offences under section 452 Indian Penal Code and section 27 Arms Act, he was sentenced to five years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500.00 each.(2) The case of the prosecution is based on a statement of Laxmi, mother of the deceased girl recorded on 8th December 1987. According to the said statement Laxmi was sitting on the floor in the varandah of her house and her daughter Kavita aged about 15/16 years was also lying there on a cot. Babu @ Nepali (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) had been residing in her neighbourhood. He used to tease her daughter Kavita. On being rebuked he gave up teasing Kavita ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
AbhayM. Thipsay, J. 1. These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as they take exception to the same order i.e. the order dated 7th October 2011 passed by the Judge of the Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as "MCOC Act") for Greater Bombay in MCOC Special Case No.9 of 2011 which was pending before him. The respondents herein are the accused in the said case. 2. The respondent no.3 had filed an application (Exhibit21) before the Trial Court praying that the proceedings under the MCOC Act be dropped, and the case be sent for trial to the Court of Sessions. It was the contention of the respondent no.3 that since no offence punishable under the provisions of the MCOC Act was disclosed from the police report and accompanying documents, the said Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence in question. The learned Judge after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the offence allegedly com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.1. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.1.1993 and 25.1.1993 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 653 of 1992 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari whereby the appellant was found guilty under Section 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of rupees one lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two years.2. Prosecution story (Ext-2) relates to an occurrence dated 31.3.1992 when the custom Inspector (PW 12) along with custom officials was checking at Bairiya and in course of checking a bus was stopped which was going towards Muzaffarpur. A passenger with plastic bag was found lying on the bus. On inquiry about the plastic bag he claimed that he it was his own and disclosed his name. That persons was perplexed at the sight of the custom officials. After observing paraphernalia search of the bag was made and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2556
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31-10-2002 delivered by Shri Lakhan Singh, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Distt. Korba in Sessions Trial No. 478/2001 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 376, 366, 363 and 342, I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 376, I.P.C. to R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 366, I.P.C. to R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 363 and to R.I. for 3 months under Section 342, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month each for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376, I.P.C.2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years and 2 months and a student of Class IX, left for her school on a cycle at about 10.15 a.m. from her house. Near Polytechnic College, by the side of the road, the appellant-Kishore Bahadur along with Ram Bh...
Tag this Judgment!