Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-17-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC3279; 2002CriLJ4310; JT2002(7)SC393; 2002(6)SCALE516; (2002)7SCC606
Sema, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and orderpassed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 15th May, 2000in Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 1979 and Government Appeal No. 2819 of1979. Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 1979 had been preferred by Baljore (theappellant before us in Criminal Appeal No. 787/2002), who was convictedunder Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by an order datedIst May, 1979 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, inSessions Trial No. 533 of 1977. Government Appeal No. 2819 of 1979 hadbeen preferred by the State of U.P. against the acquittal judgment by theTrial Court acquitting Mohar, Tikori and Tapsi (Mohar and Tikori areappellants before us in Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2000) for the offencespunishable under Section 302, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Bythe impugned judgment the High Court, after examining the evidence onrecord, dismissed Criminal appeal No. 1659 of 1979 preferred by Baljoreand h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-03-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC3620; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)280; 2003CriLJ28; (2003)1GLR330; (2003)1GLR330; JT2002(7)SC529; 2002(7)SCALE201; (2002)8SCC447; [2002]SUPP3SCR46; 2002(2)LC1454(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Deceased Raghunath Yadav was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court at Varanasi for the murder of father of Brijesh Singh-who is one of the absconding accused in the present case. While on bail in appeal, Raghunath Yadav, apprehending danger to his life, came to reside at Mehsana in the State of Gujarat. On 14th June, 1992, Reghunath Yadav was murdered at Mehsana.2. In TADA case Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 of 1990, twelve accused were triedby the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad for offences under Section 302,397, 120B, IPC Section 3(1), 3(3), 3(4) and 5 of the Terrorist AndDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'TADA Act') andunder Section 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Arms Act.3. The charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 was filed on 6th April,1993, against accused Nos. 4 to 6 on 1st July, 1994 against accused Nos.7 to 11 on 15th April, 1996 and against accused No. 12 on 26th November,1996. The charges were that the accused persons and abscondingaccused - ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-09-2002
Eldred v. Ashcroft - 537 U.S. 186 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus ELDRED ET AL. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 01-618. Argued October 9, 2002-Decided January 15,2003 The Copyright and Patent Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: "Congress shall have Power ... [t]o promote the Progress of Science ... by securing [to Authors] for limited Times ... the exclusive Right to their ... Writings." In the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years: Under the 1976 Copyright Act (1976 Act), copyright protection generally lasted from a work's creation until 50 years after the author's death; under the CTEA, most copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author's death, 17 U. S. C. 302(a). As in the case of prior copyright extensions, principally in 1831, 1909, and 1976, Congress provided for applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-30-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC258; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)100; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)201; 2003CriLJ434; JT2002(9)SC257; 2003(1)KLT3(SC); (2003)1SCC259
Sema, J. 1. Four appellants - Anthony D'Souza, Anil Kumar @ Anil D'souza, Seril D'souza and George D'souza @ Babli were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur and convicted for the offences under Section 143 IPC. Section 396 read with 149 IPC and Section 201 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 143 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 396 read with Section 149 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine SI for three months and to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 149 IPC in default of payment of fine, SI for three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal their conviction and sentence is confirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts are as follows:-3. Deceased Vittal Shetty and Paul were employed as driver and cleaner in a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-31-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC355; 2003(51)BLJR158; JT2002(9)SC1; 2003(1)KarLJ1; (2002)8SCC481; (2002)3UPLBEC2817
ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A RELIGIOUS OR LINGUISTIC MINORITY IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 30, WHAT IS TO BE THE UNIT - THE STATE OR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE?74. We now consider the question of the unit for the purpose of determining the definition of 'minority' within the meaning of Article 30(1).75. Article 30(1) deals with religious minorities and linguistic minorities. The opening words of Article 30(1) make it clear that religious and linguistic minorities have been put at par, insofar as that Article is concerned. Therefore, whatever the unit - whether a state or the whole of India - for determining a linguistic minority, it would be the same in relation to a religious minority. India is divided into different linguistic states. The states have been carved out on the basis of the language of the majority of persons of that region. For example, Andhra Pradesh was established on the basis of the language of that region. viz., Telugu. 'Linguistic minority' can, therefore, logically...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-12-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC269; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)924; 2003CriLJ443; JT2002(9)SC445; (2003)1SCC506; 2003(1)LC576(SC)
Banerjee, J.1. On a reference to the High Court by the Principal Judge of theSessions Court at Bombay for confirmation of an order of death sentence passed against the appellants herein in Sessions Case No. 477 of 1996, the High Court recorded its finding in theaffirmative to the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is this order of confirmation which is before this Court presently under consideration. 2. Significantly accused Nos. 4 to 10 are absconding and the matter was dealt with thus against accused Nos.1, 2 an 3. Since the matter has been argued before this Court in rather great a length, we think it fit and proper to note the charges so framed in extenso at this juncture and before entering on to the arena of merits. The changes read as below:'Firstly -- That you No. 1 along with Nos. 2 and 3 above named and absconding accused Nos. 4 to 10 above named on the aforesaid date, time and place and prior to it agreed to murder Harish Vallabhdas Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-03-2002
Reported in : JT2002(10)SC105; 2003(4)MhLj126; (2003)1SCC433
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. An advertisement was published in the Times of India dated 5.10.1999: it read as follows:'Accommodation available for two rooms self-contained apartment with sea-view, telephone optional, ideal for executives, couples, reasonable terms'.2. The appellant before us, namely, Feroze N. Dotivalaq approached the respondent namely, Wadhwanis in response to the above noted advertisement and he was given the accommodation on payment of certain amount as compensation for the same. The moot question that falls for consideration in this appeal is about the nature of occupation of the premises as to whether the appellant is a 'licensee' or a 'paying guest' in the light of the relevant provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). 3. According to the appellant, in the year 1975 after the death of the mother of the respondent No. 1, he wanted the appellant to give in writing that he was occupying the premises as a paying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-10-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC539; 2003CriLJ817; (2003)1SCC425
Arun Kumar, J.1. Eight accused persons were charged for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of the 8 accused persons, 2 had been released on temporary bail on different occasions during trial. They did not surrender and could not be arrested. Therefore, their trial had to be separated. They are Rafique s/o Chand Khan and Aslam alias Mangole s/o Salim. The remaining 6 accused viz. Yunis alias Karri alias Kariya. Ballu alias Abdul Nayeem, Abdul Rauf, Daggi alias Rafique, Liyaquatullah and Mohammad Javid were tried and convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC. Abdul Nayeem one of the accused was also convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC while each one of the remaining five was additionally convicted and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. These convictions were as per the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 274/1985 decided on 3rd December, 1987. The six convic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)1169; 2003(1)AWC753(SC); JT2002(10)SC310; (2003)2SCC45; [2002]SUPP5SCR186; 2003(1)LC137(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. All these Petitions raise the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycotts of Court/s. In all these Petitions a declaration is sought that such strikes and/or calls for boycott are illegal. As the questions vitally concerned the legal profession, public notices were issued to Bar Associations and Bar Councils all over the country. Pursuant to those notices some Bar Associations and Bar Councils have filed their responses and have appeared and made submissions before us.2. In Writ Petition (C) No. 821 of 1990, an interim order came to be passed. This Order is reported in : [1996]1SCR89 . The circumstances under which it is passed and the nature of the interim order are set out in the Order. The relevant portion reads as under:'2. The Officiating Secretary, Bar Council of India, Mr. C. R. Balaram filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein he states that a 'National Conference' ofmembers of the Bar Council of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2002
Reported in : (2003)1MLJ106(SC); (2003)1UPLBEC649
S.N. Variava, J.1. All these petitions raise the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott or Court/s. In all these petitions a declaration is sought that such strikes and/or calls for boycott are illegal. As the questions vitally concerned the legal profession, public notices were issued to Bar Associations and Bar Councils all over the country. Pursuant to those notices some Bar Associations and Bar Councils have filed their responses and have appeared and made submissions before us.2. In Writ Petition (C) No. 821 of 1990, and interim order came to be passed. This order is reported in : [1996]1SCR89 . The circumstances under which it is passed and the nature of the interim order are set out in the order. The relevant portion reads as under :'2. The officiating Secretary, Bar Council of India, Mr. C.R. Balaram filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein he states that a 'National Conference' of Members of the Bar Council of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!