Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-19-2008
Reported in : JT2009(1)SC562; 2009(1)SCALE551; (2009)3SCC35
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby and whereunder an order dated 22..12.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 151 of 1995 as also the office memorandum dated 22.12.2000 were set aside and the appellants herein were directed to consider the case of absorption of the respondents in terms of the scheme by considering the question of relaxation with respect to their length of experience in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9 thereof. It was furthermore directed that benefit with respect to breaks shall also be given to the petitioners as had been done in the case of other researchers who had been absorbed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.Appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has laboratories situated in different parts of the country. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC944; 2009CriLJ7872; 2008(16)SCALE158; 2009AIRSCW1; 2008(6)LHSC4417
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 14.5.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 1981 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.6.1981 passed by Sri R.K. Mishra, III Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 418 of 1980 holding that the appellant was guilty for commission of offences under Sections 148, 452 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, 18 months and life imprisonment respectively, was dismissed.2. Appellant was prosecuted in respect of commission of offences, the incident whereof took place on or about 15.8.1979 at about 9.30 p.m. in the house of one Mewa Ram. Janamashtami festival was being celebrated on that night. Dinesh Kumar and Girish Kumar, the sons of the informant Mewa Ram, Smt. Ramlali, his wife, so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC1411; 2009(3)KarLJ529; 2008(16)SCALE1; 2009AIRSCW871; 2009(1)LHSC385
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant is before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.6.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1999 reversing a judgment of acquittal dated 15.9.1998 in S.C. No. 30/91 passed in his favour by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore.2. There is a small village `Rammanahalli' situate near the town of Mysore. It has two streets called `Kelaginakeri' and `Melinakeri'. A cinema tent was put therein. There were two groups in the village residing in one or the other said streets. One group intended the owner of cinema/theatre to exhibit films starring Dr. Rajkumar and the other group asked them to exhibit the films starring Sri Vishnuvardhan. They had been asking the proprietor of the theatre to release the films in which their favourite stars were acting. The occurrence took place at about 8.00 a.m. on 9.12.1990.3. The prosecution case is as under:Maruchhaia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-02-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ942; 2008(15)SCALE400; 2008(6)LHSC4383; AIR2009SC958; 2009AIRSCW25
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Both these appeals arising out of the common judgment and order dated 09.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 2004 of 1981, were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. By the impugned order, the High Court while setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated June 5, 1981 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 1980, convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.2. Brief facts of the case are that Subedar Singh (P.W. 1) has got three sons, namely, Jai Karan Singh, Shiv Karan Singh and Ram Karan Singh. P.W. 1 lodged F.I.R. (Ex. Ka.1) on 24.07.1980 at 6:15 a.m. at Police Station, Sumerpur situated at a distance of about 15 kms. from village Patyora, alleging therein that in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-21-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)LHSC4219
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which by the impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') while setting aside the conviction under Section 398 IPC as done by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, in connection with Sessions trial No. 6 (1) of 1997.2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:On 1st August, 1996, at about 11.40 in the night the present appellant along with others came in a white Ambassador car having fake number plate in front of the grocery shop under the name and style 'Prabhat Stores' situated at 7/1, Bampass Road, Calcutta-29. The persons who came in the Ambassador car were armed with weapons like pistol, nepala etc. and they entered into the grocery shop and demanded key of the cash box from the proprietor of the shop namely Gulab Mehata (hereinafter referred to as the `dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1104
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is filed by Moorthy son of Kuppan against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1991 by which the appellant was convicted under section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:-PW1, Palaniammal and her son, Murugan, the deceased in this case were in possession and enjoyment of a porambok land and regarding that there was a dispute at the instance of the accused claiming a right to enjoyment and possession to the said property. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers and the 3rd accused has two young children called Senthil and Subhash. The incident had taken place on 18.5.1988 in the evening at about 4.30 p.m. Even on that morning there was an incident in which the parents of accused 1 and 2 and the wife of the 2nd accused sustained injuries which resulted in a complaint against the deceased and others before th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-14-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC600; RLW2009(2)SC1364; 2008AIRSCW7744; 2008(6)LHSC4251
..... order of acquittal passed by the trial court in sessions trial no. 379 / 1996, whereby, appellants asif mamu and mukhtiyar malik @ javed, besides accused rajiulla khan and sheru @ sher khan nepali [in short 'asif', mukhtiyar', 'rajiulla' and 'sheru', respectively] were acquitted. criminal appeal no. 718 of 2007 arises out of the said common judgment of conviction passed by the high court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-07-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC581; (2009)1SCC482
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Appellant-Ratan Kumar Vishwas has filed an Appeal No. 6636 of 2006 questioning his conviction the offence punishable under Sections 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short `the Act'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of rupees two lacs with default stipulation. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar has found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.3. Brief facts of the case as projected by prosecution are that a secret and reliable information on 5.3.2004 was received by the complainant an officer of the N.C.B., Varanasi that huge quantity of Charas was being brought from Nepal to Kanpur in Truck No. UHN 9137 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-21-2008
Reported in : 2008(13)SCALE398; (2009)2SCC47
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 3015-3016/2005. The appellants in these two appeals are the kith and kin of some persons killed in the Godhra Train Burning incident and in the Akshardham Temple attack. They2 have challenged the judgment dated 13.4.2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos. 1103 & 1105/2005 filed by them. For convenience, the appellants in these two appeals will be referred to as the `relatives of victims'.2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1113/2005, 1498- 1500/2005, 359/2006, 734/2007, 735/2007 and 736/2007 are persons who have been charged in respect of offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, in terrorism related cases. In these appeals, they have also challenged the said judgment dated 13.4.2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos. 1103 & 1105 of 2005, and other judgments of the said High Court and the judgment of the Bombay High Court which follow the said decision. The appellants in these appeals wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALT46(SC); 2008(2)CTLJ479(SC); [2009(1)JCR110(SC)]; JT2008(12)SC371; 2008(14)SCALE476:2008AIRSCW94
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Since common points are involved in these appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants before the Andhra Pradesh High Court praying for quashing the order passed by the State Government in Memorandum No. 8817/M.II(1)/2001-6, dated 4.2.2002 and the consequent demand notice issued by the Director of Mines and Geology and the proceedings of the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology. The appellant in each case is engaged in the business of construction, engineering and civil works. In each case the appellant had participated in the tenders invited by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (in short `BHEL') for the purpose of executing their part of the contract which is with NTPC for levelling and grading. BHEL had awarded the contract to the appellant- company for execution of the work. According to the appellant, the material required for the purpose of execution of the contract in terms of the specifications prescribed...
Tag this Judgment!