Court : Allahabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. for the State. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, Ramjan against the judgement and order dated 13.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F. T. C. No. 1, Siddhartha Nagar convicting the appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) ( C ) of N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo 10 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,00000/- (One Lac Only) and in default of payment of fine further R. I. of two years. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 7.11.2008 Sub-Inspector, Imanwal Singh received information from Mukhbir Khas that one person was brining Nepali Charas from Krishna Nagar Bazar, Nepal to Barhni Bazar, India, whereupon Sub-Inspector, Imanwal Singh along with Lans Nayak No. 8657229 Hardev Singh and No. 050333501 Guard Sunil Kumar, B. Company Barhni Headquarter, Gorakhpur reached Barhni Bazar where 8847378 Nayak Mahesh Prabhar and 070091511 Guard Ashok Ghosh were already on duty in Lane No. 2 Barhni Bazar. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. t July, 2013 Pronounced on:20. h September, 2013 + CRL.A.976/2012 SALIM @ NAJU Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus STATE Through : + ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor CRL.A.802/2013 RAJ KUMAR @ KHUJJAR Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. These two appeals arise out of judgment dated 27.02.2012 and order on sentence dated 14.03.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.206/2009 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code(IPC) and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of `5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.1. The appellant was declared elected to the post of Mukhia of Mahinathpur Gram Panchayat in the district of Madhubani (Bihar) in the last election. Soon thereafter a complaint case bearing No. 2 of 2007 was filed before the State Election Commissioner, Bihar. That case was heard on several dates, the State Election Commissioner allowed the parties to produce evidence and also got the matter enquired by the District Magistrate, Madhubani who submitted a report to the State Election Commissioner against the appellant that he had acquired Nepali Citizenship when he attained the age of 17 years and his father and one of his brothers were also citizens of Nepal.. Considering all the evidence and materials, the State Election Commissioner by order dated 25-5-2007, passed in exercise of power under Section 136(i)(a) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') disqualified the writ petitioner/appellant from holding the post of Mukhia. The said po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. t July, 2013 Pronounced on:20. h September, 2013 + CRL.A.976/2012 SALIM @ NAJU Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus STATE Through : + ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor CRL.A.802/2013 RAJ KUMAR @ KHUJJAR Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. These two appeals arise out of judgment dated 27.02.2012 and order on sentence dated 14.03.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.206/2009 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code(IPC) and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of `5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All533
ORDERKidwai, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by Changur who ha3 been convicted under Section 60, Clause (a) of Excise Act for being in possession of two seers of contraband Nepali Ganja. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He appealed but the learned Sessions Judge of Gonda upheld the conviction and the sentence. The applicant has come up in revision. It is contended on his behalf that his conviction is bad for the following reasons: (1) that he was arrested not by an Excise Officer but by the villagers belonging to the village defence party and consequently the arrest was illegal; (2) that no report of the Chemical Examiner was produced to show that the Ganja recovered was Nepali contraband Ganja; and (3) that the prosecution was initiated by a Sub-Inspector of Police and not by an Excise Officer and consequently the applicant could not be convicted under Section 60 (a), Excise Act. 2. It appears that on the night between the 3rd and 4th S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1997(57)ECC93,1997(89)ELT478(Cal)
1. On 20th April, 1985 the appellants say some of their Officers found the Respondent No. 1 in possession of two gold bars and one gold stick as well as some old and broken gold ornaments. The Respondent No. 1 is a dealer in gold ornaments. The recovery was alleged to have been made upon search of the person and the bag in the possession of the Respondent No. 1 at the business premises of one Prakash Yadav. The said Officers took the Respondent No. 1 to the Customs House where a confessional statement was made by the Respondent No. 1.2. In the statement the Respondent No. 1 had first set out particulars of his family and himself as well as his business. The relevant extracts of the confessional statement are:'All the officers (affairs ?) of the shop are being locked after by myself only. Beside the shop I personally sometimes purchase and sell small amount of gold which I purchased from different broker and sell to different person on premium. Actually at present with the showroom in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2011)11SCC666
1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 1579 of 2002 acquitting the respondents, setting aside their conviction and the sentence passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Laxmangarh, Alwar, dated 2.11.2002 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2002 (14/2000) for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called the IPC).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are as under:A. Santosh Jagwayan (PW.13) lodged an FIR on 17.12.1996 at 8.30 A.M., that in the intervening night between 16th and 17th December, 1996 on hearing the noise, he sent his Chowkidar Gopal Nepali (deceased) to the roof of his house. Gopal Nepali went upstairs and opened the gate of the roof and found that 8 to 10 accused persons were trying to enter into the house by breaking upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.14/2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation and trial, has been ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under;- On 5.2.2008 at about 4.00p.m, PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station at Panaji received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach near Martin's B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Wangdi, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Sub-Section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the œCr.P.C.) assailing the impugned judgment dated 20-06-2013 of the Sessions Judge, Special Division “ I, Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2011 which had set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) against the Respondent No.1 in Private Complaint Case No.19 of 2008 for offence under Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the œIPC?) on a complaint lodged by the Appellant. 2. In the original complaint, it had been alleged that the Respondent No.1 who is the Editor and Publisher Sikkim Social Empowerment Association vs. Shri Anjan Upadhyaya and Another of local dailies, namely, Hamro Prajashakti in Nepali and Himalayan Mirror in English had indulged in publishing various o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2671; JT1998(5)SC504; 1998(4)SCALE542; (1998)6SCC670
Rajendra Babu, J.1. These three sets of appeals arise out of the orders made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench). The appellants herein are/were employed in the Pension-Paying Offices attached to the respective Ministries in the Embassy of India at Nepal. Writ petitions had been preferred before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and on the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court transferred these petitions for its consideration by an order made on 3-11-1992 in WPs Nos. 591 of 1987, 903 of 1988, 620 of 1991 and 181 of 1987.2. In Civil Appeal No. 4569 of 1996, there are three appellants and they were recruited by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in Nepal and posted in the Pension-Paying Office at Pokhran. While the first appellant was appointed as a lower division clerk on 24-7-1972, Appellant 2 was appointed on 21-10-1964 and Appellant 3 on 2-9-1985. Thus at the time of filing of these appeals, Appellant 1 had put i...
Tag this Judgment!