Court : Punjab and Haryana
Crl.A.No.D-765-DB of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A.No.D-765-DB of 2009 Date of Decision : 23.5.2014 Pushpinder Singh @ Noni and others .......Appellants Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present:- Mr.Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with, Mr.Simrandeep Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.P.P.S.Tethi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent-State. KULDIP SINGH, J. This judgment will dispose of CRA No.D-765-DB of 2009, filed by accused/appellants Pushpinder Singh @ Noni, Kulwinder Singh @ Kinda, Vishal Arya @ Sonu Nepali and Sukhjit Singh @ Kaka against the judgment and order dated 10.8.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the accused Kulwinder Singh @ Kinda was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous impri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1997CriLJ2886
Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.1. This appeal by accused-appellant Ravi Magor (alias-Rabi Bahadur, alias -- Rabi Bahadur Magor) is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dt. 13-10-93 passed by the 14. Addl. Sessions Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, South 24 pgs., in Sessions Trial Nos. 5(7) of 1992, convicting the appellant for an offence under Section.392/397 1 .P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R. 1. for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- i.d., to suffer R.I. for a further period of 4 months and also convicting him for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d., to suffer R.I. for a further period of 2 months, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.2. In the Trial Court, the present appellant and two others were charged for an offence under Section 392 read with Section. 397 of the IPC. An additional charge for an offence under Section 25(1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2002)256ITR26(Pat.)
1. The Department is in appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that unexplained deposits in the name of Nepali citizens in the Indian banks cannot be taxed under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main reason asserted by the Department is that it is not proved that the source of such deposit in the bank is actually in Nepal and not in India.2. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that on the basis of the enquiry conducted at the bank information was gathered under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act for violation of Section 195 of the Income-tax Act relating to a Nepali/non-resident. Notice under Section 142(1) was issued but no return was filed.3. Instead a copy of the ledger account of the depositor's account in the bank was filed. The learned Assessing Officer considered the deposit as income by the non-resident in India and, therefore, taxed it as unexplained investment under Section 69 together with interest ea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All109; 121Ind.Cas.701
1. The property is dispute originally belonged to Molai who in 1881 put his wife Mt. Nepali in possession and got mutation of names effected in her favour. It has been assumed all along that by adverse possession Mt. Nepali acquired an absolute proprietary interest in this property. The property therefore became her stridhan. In 1890 long after the death of her husband she attempted to make a gift of this property in favour of her daughter Mt. Lakhpati and got mutation of names effected in her favour. It is admitted that Mt. Lakhpati continued in adverse possession of this property from 1890 to 1899 when Mt. Nepali died. On the death of Mt. Nepali, her daughter Mt. Lakhpati was her sole heir. She continued in possession of this property as before till her death in 1920. Mt. Nepali had not executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Mt. Lakhpati as required by law.2. The plaintiff is an heir of Mt. Lakhpati's husband and claims the property on the ground that it was the stridhan of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : AIR2004Sik41
R.K. Patra, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of Notification No. 13(789)/L.R.(S) dated 3-3-1987 of the State Government in the Land Revenue Department (published in the Gazette dated 5-3-1987) at Annexure A1 made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Notification No. 1(789)/L.R.(S) dated 25-8-1987 of the same department (published in the Gazette dated 27-8-1987) at Annexure A made under Section 6(1) of the Act. The petitioner also questions the validity of the Land Acquisition (Sikkim) Amendment Act, 1992.2. The writ petition was originally filed by Kazi Lhendup Dorji Khangsharpa as petitioner No. 1 and Nar Bahadur Khatiwada as petitioner No. 2. In his application dated 17-11-1988 Kazi Lhendup Dorji Khangsharpa sought permission to withdraw the writ petition saying that he did not want to proceed with the matter. By order dated 6-9-1990 this Court allowed his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal273
Lort Williams, J.1. The appellants were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 147/109, Penal Code. They were tried with two other accused by the Additional Sessions Judge at Alipore and a jury. Ram Sumer Ahir alias Matabadal was convicted of offences under Sections 148 and 323, and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and one year respectively, to run consecutively; the other appellants were convicted under Section 147 and sentenced each to imprisonment for two years, and the other two accused were acquitted.2. The case for the prosecution was, that the complainant Mr. J. Choudhury, who is a member of the English Bar, an Advocate of the Calcutta High Court, Editor of the Calcutta Weekly Notes and a respected citizen of Calcutta, is the owner of certain property called Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Sarba Mangala, Hat Lane. He obtained a civil Court decree for ejectment and vacant possession against one Ram Gopal, and on 3rd July 1932 the Nazir having obtained specific instructions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.427 OF2014RANJIT KUMAR HALDAR .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.458 OF2015JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) The present appeals arise out of common judgment dated November 25, 2011, maintaining conviction and sentence on the appellants for causing death of Netai Mohanta. An FIR was lodged by Bhola Mohanta (PW-1), brother of the deceased, on December 28, 2004. The original FIR was lodged in Bengali language (Exh. 1), which was later translated in Nepali language. Bhola Mohanta (PW-1) in his statement has stated that his brother had gone to Rabom Power House at Lachung along with Page 1 of 163) his family with the accused Ranjit Haldar to work as Carpenter. He further stated that his deceased brother, Netai Mohanta, was murdered by accused Ranjit Haldar along with his nephew Puran Bandhu Mondal and Mamta Mohanta, wife of the deceased. He also stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 Death Reference No.3 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Death Reference No.3 of 2013 With Cr. Appeal (DB) No.708 of 2013 With Cr. Appeal (DB) No.775 of 2013 With Cr. Appeal (DB) No.931 of 2013 With Cr. Appeal (DB) No.966 of 2013 (Against the Judgment of conviction dated 12 th July 2013 and Order of sentence dated 17.7.2013 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh, in S.T. No.40A of 2002, S.T. No.234 of 2004 and S.T. No.380 of 2004) The State of Jharkhand Vs.1. Kailash Sao 2. Birendra Ram @ Birodhi Ram [Parties in Death Reference No.3 of 2013] Jagarnath Sao @ Jagganath Sao Vs. The State of Jharkhand [Parties in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.708 of 2013] Birendra Ram @ Birodhi Ram Vs. The State of Jharkhand [Parties in Cr. Appeal(DB) No.775 of 2013] Kailash Sao Vs. The State of Jharkhand [Parties in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.931 of 2013] Chetlal Prajapati @ Master Vs. The State of Jharkhand [Parties in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.966 of 2013] PRESENT HONB...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]2SCR433
Mudholkar, J.1. This judgment will govern Criminal Appeals Nos. 177 and 178 also. All these three appeals arise out of the same trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr who conducted the trial convicted the appellant, Ramchandra Chaudhary who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1961 for an offence under s. 302 Indian Penal Code. He also convicted Baleshwar Rai alias Nepali Master, appellant in this appeal and Jogendra Chaudhary, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1961 of an offence under s. 302 read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code. He sentenced each of the three to death. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Patna, and sentences of death passed against them were confirmed by it. They have come up before this Court by special leave. 2. The prosecution story is briefly as follows :- On March 17, 1959 at about 8.00 p.m. the chaukidars of the village Fateha had assembled, as usual, in the 'crime center' of the village. Their names are - Anandi Paswan, (d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj1198; 2005(1)WLC436
Vyas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment November 2,2002, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Laxmangarh, Alwar, whereby he convicted and sentenced accused-appellants Ghurelal, Chunchu @ Bhagwan Singh, Raghuveer, Kallu, Rajpal, Kuniya, Talebar and Samay Singh for the offence under Section 396, IPC, to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment; accused Ghurelal, Chunchu @ Bhagwan Singh, Raghuveer, Kallu, Rajpal, Kuniya, Talebar and Samay Singh for the offence under Section 397, IPC, to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment; accused Ghurelal, Chunchu @ Bhagwan Singh, Raghuveer, Kallu, Rajpal, Kuniya, Talebar and Samay Singh for the offence under Section 395, IPC, to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine ...
Tag this Judgment!