Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jun-13-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)405; 2008(56)BLJR2244; 2008(9)SCALE415; (2008)6SCC772; 2008(2)LC757(SC); 2008AIRSCW4288; 2008(6)SCC772; (2008)3SCC(Cri)133; 2008(3)Crimes24; 2008(3)AICLR618; 2008(4)Supreme497; 2008(4)LH(SC)2334
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (in short the `Act') and sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation. Two other persons faced trial alongwith the appellant for offences punishable under Section 13 read with Section 14 of the Act. While co- accused Bagwan Sahai Sain acquitted, the other accused Smt. Sunita alias Sonu alias Nagma convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:SHO Vidhadhar Nagar, Jaipur acting upon the information of informant on 13.1.2004, the then SHO Richpal Singh alongwith Superintendent of Police reached at Vidhyadhar Nagar bus stand No. 15 and v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-26-2008
District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA etal. v . HELLER certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 07290.Argued March 18, 2008Decided June 26, 2008 District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D.C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-07-2008
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR141(SC)]; 2008(9)SCALE630; (2008)7SCC334; 2008AIRSCW5261; 2008(7)SCC334; (2008)3SCC(Cri)94
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High court dismissing the MAC Appeal No. 219/07 and order dismissing the application for review.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent-Bhupinder filed a claim petition stating that he was injured in an accident where scooter bearing No. DL 3S 7420 was involved. According to the respondent the accident occurred on 2.8.1995 at 11.20 a.m. He sustained injuries. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Delhi allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs. 57,635/- alongwith 6% interest thereon. Appellant was impleaded in the claim petition as the sole respondent. Stand of the appellant was that his vehicle was not offending vehicle and in any event he was not driving the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time as claimed. He relied on certificate issued by his employer which clearly indicated that at the relevant point of time he was wo...
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 : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(121)ECC1; 2008(157)LC1(SC); JT2008(8)SC426; 2008(10)SCALE498; 2008AIRSCW5954.
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final judgment and order No. 1-1255/KOL/2001 dated 23rd November, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.2. The three Bills of Entry which are the bone of contentions in the present case are detailed below:(i) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2256 dated 30th April, 1998, per Vessel X-Press Singapore Voy-257, Rot. No. 258/98 dated 7th April, 1998, Line No. 97, Country of origin - India, Goods 135 cartons 2/64 NM Merino Wool 100% Raw White on paper cone, Assessable Value - Rs. 36,63,829/-. (ii) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2440 dated 29th May, 1998, per Vessel S.S. Acacia V. 818, Rot No. 370/98, Line No. 154, Country of Origin - India, Goods - 20 pallets Polyester 100% Semi Dull Ring Spun Yarn for weaving NE 24/2, Assessable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE249
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The appellant and his father Baldu had filed the appeal before the High Court questioning the correctness of the conviction and imposition of sentence as done by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1980. The appellant's father Baldu died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned.3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:Kali Charan, first informant (PW-1), his father Lachhi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and his mother Smt. Ram Kunwar were returning after ploughing the land of Chandra Bhan with their bullocks on 28.7.1980 through th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-22-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3200; 2008(10)SCALE292; (2008)11SCC637
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine with default stipulation. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo 15 days' RI. Additionally, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI and pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Similarly, in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year. In appeal, by the impugned judgment, High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:On 3.8.1999, Vaje Singh (PW-1) lodged a First Information Repo...
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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-08-2008
Reported in : JT2008(8)SC650; 2008(11)SCALE233; 2008AIRSCW6322
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Challenging the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.9.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 1980 acquitting Kishanpal Singh, Suresh Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 & 10), the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:On 21.6.1978 at 3.30 p.m., the sixteen accused persons gathered at the door of Gyan Singh and made a criminal conspiracy for killing Kaptan Singh and Raj Mahesh as they were harassing them unnecessarily. At about 4.00 P.M., Onkar Singh, Kishanpal Singh, Vijaipal Singh, Suresh Singh, Naresh Singh, Daulat Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 1to10) reached at the place of occurrence with firearms. Onkar Singh (Accused No. 1), Naresh Singh (Accused No. 5), Daulat Singh (Accused No. 6) and Sheodan Singh (Accused No. 9) had guns while others had country-ma...
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!