Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-18-2002
Reported in : (2002)1CALLT302(HC),2002(2)CHN216
A. Talukdar, J.1. This is a Revlsional application which is directed against a Judgment and order dated 29.2.2000 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court. Mldnapore in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 1/November 1998 corresponding to G.R Case No.900 of 1992 thereby recording an order of acquittal in favour of the accused/opposite parties in respect of charge framed against them under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 325, 427, 448. 436 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The order of acquittal has been sought to be assailed in this Revlsional application on behalf of the complainant/petitioner on the ground that the evidence on record was not properly assessed by learned trial Court and although the F.I.R. was lodged at 6.15 pm. where as the Incident took place at 2.00 p.m. on 01.6.1992 there was no scope of concoction and fabrication of the version and P.W.I who himself was a victim of the incident could not be disbelieved and in view of the fact that there was pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-16-2002
Reported in : (2002)4GLR3734
K.M. Mehta, J.1. D. Barot-petitioner herein has filed this petition for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or Order, quashing and setting aside the impugned Order of discharge dated 13-1-1999 passed by the Special Additional Police Officer, Rajkot discharging the petitioner from service. The petitioner further prayed that this Court may direct the respondent-State of Gujarat through the Secretary, Home Department and direct the Director General of Police, Gujarat State to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits and back wages. He further prayed that this Court may also quash and set aside the Order dated 1-10-1999 passed by the Special Police Officer, Rajkot rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed that this Court may also direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been confirmed in service on 14-6-1998 when his probation period was wrongly extended for six month...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-15-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC617; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)310; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)102; (2002)1CALLT53(SC); 2002CriLJ984; 2002(1)Crimes258(SC); JT2002(1)SC106; 2002(1)SCALE133; (2002)2SCC551
1. The High Court of Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1994 confirmed the judgment and order dated 7.7.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1992 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 and 148 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC and further imposing sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. The order is challenged by filing this appeal.2. It is the prosecution version that deceased Dipak Deb alias Piklu, resident of Silchar went out for buying and chewing 'Paan (Betel)' at about 10 p.m. on 14.12.1990. On hearing his cry for help, brothers of the deceased went at the scene of the offence. It is their say that deceased Piklu was caught by the accused persons and at their instance, Nepal Deb (since deceased) gave a dagger blow on the left side of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Jan-15-2002
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondent is the petitioner This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 24-8-2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge 3rd Court, Begusarai, in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1996, whereby he has restored MTA No. 36 of 1989 to its original file.2. The present petitioner had instituted Title Suit No. 24 of 1960/12 of 1989 in the civil Court of Begusarai which was decreed. The present opposite parties had preferred Title Appeal No. 36 of 1989 in the Court of learned District Judge, Begusarai. By order dated 1-12-1995, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on account of non-appearance of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The appellants thereafter, filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 19 CPC before the same Court for restoration of the appeal to its original file which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1996. The same was allowed by order dated 9-9-1998, subject to paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-15-2002
Reported in : (2002)(141)ELT826TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order-in-original dated 8-9-2000 vide which the Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on him, through the impugned order.2. The appellant was a driver on Truck No. MP-23 D/7893 on 3-4-1998 when the said truck was intercepted on Jaipur-Delhi National Highway by the DRI Officers. There were two other occupants in the truck. The appellant along with the two occupants was brought to the DRI Office of Nepal Division. The goods loaded in the truck were examined and that examination resulted in the recovery of ball bearings, cosmetics, rechargeable NI-CD (Nickel Cadmium) Pencil batteries etc. of foreign origin. The present appellant admitted his involvement in the smuggling of the goods, in his statement. The other persons also did not contest their liability. The Commissioner through the impugned order directed absolute confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 82,96,900/- and also of the truck of the appellant. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-11-2002
Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT315
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The centrum, issue that we are obligated to advert to in this batch of writ petitions, which are inseggregable and inseverable, is 'education' that makes a man a complete human being in its conceptual essence and connotativecontinuum. In the days of yore, a realised poet Bhartruhari sang in the glory of 'Vidya' in the following terms:--'VIDYA NAAM NARASYA ROOPAMADHIKAMPRACHHANNA GUPTAM DHANAMVIDYA BHOGAKARI YAASHAH SUKHAKARIYIVIDYA GURUNAM GURUHVIDYA BANDHUJANO VIDESHGAMANEVIDYAPARAM DAIVATAMVIDYA RAJASUPUJYATE NAHI DHANAMVIDYA BIHINAH PASHUH.'A free translation of the aforesaid verse would mean that education is the most resplendent exposition of a man and in it inheres the concept of quintessential treasure. It is the bedrock of all happiness, fame and pleasure. Education is the preceptor of the teacher and acts as a dear friend in travel and is the supreme God, the creative intelligence. It is education but not money which is honoured and respected in the roy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-11-2002
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT(Cri)335; 2002(82)ECC783
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. A novel question arises in this case and that is whether in a case where additionalevidence is recorded under Section 391(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an N.D.P.S.Act case, the accused can seek the benefit of Section 41 of the N.D.P.S. (Amendment)Act, 2001 (Act 9 of 2001). The said provision gives the benefit of reduced sentenceavailable under the amended provisions with retrospective effect to the accused whosecases are still under trail; but denies that benefit to the accused in cases which arepending before the appellate court.2. The challenge in the appeal is with regard to the conviction entered against theappellant as accused in S.C. No. 78/2000 of the Special Court for the Trial of theN.D.P.S. Act Cases, Vadakara, for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S.Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh (indefault, simple imprisonment for six months) imposed therefor.3. The prosecution case tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-10-2002
Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)149; AIR2002Delhi255; 2002(1)ARBLR610(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT515
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an International Award. It was made and published on 24th September, 1997. By virtue of the award, the plaintiffs Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH (in short 'ISU') are entitled to the following sums:- 'a) US $ 2,184,079.91 being the damages awarded to the plaintiffs for the first and the second lot. b) US $ 424,813.85 being the interest awarded for the two lots till the date of the award.c) US # 500,000 being legal costs awarded under the award. d) USD 50,000 being costs of the arbitration awarded under the award. e) For the interest at the same rate as in the award from the date of the award till realization.' 2. Defendant - Steel Authority of India Limited (in short SAIL) has assailed the award almost in entirety. 3. Disputes between the parties arose out of two contracts, one of which was admittedly a concluded contract against which supplies were made. It is dated 4.3.1994 which was subsequently amended on 12.5.1994 (hereinafter referred as 'amendment'). Another is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-10-2002
Reported in : 2002BomCR(Cri)246; 2002CriLJ1026
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Seven persons namely Deoppa Ishwar Shinde, Ganpat Maruti Shinde, Rajaram Ganpat Shinde, Uttam Rajaram Shinde, Sukhdeo Rajaram Shinde, Ishwar Maruti Shinde and Murlidhar Appa Shinde were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions case No. 30 of 1986 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 and 324 r/w. 149, IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 22-7-1986, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused other than Deoppa Ishwar Shinde on all the counts but, convicted and sentenced Deoppa Ishwar Shinde in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) Under Section 302, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer four years R.I.;(ii) Under Section 324, IPC (No separate sentence was awarded).2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentence, Deoppa Ishwar Shinde has preferred the present appeal.The State of Maharashtra has however, not challenged the acquittal of the six acquitted accused.3. Shortly sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Jan-09-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17th March, 1986 and decree dated 8th April, 1986 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bettiah, in Title Appeal No. 16/99 of 1984-85 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19th May, 1984 and 30th May, 1984 respectively passed by 2nd Additional Munsif, Bettiah (West Champaran), in Title Suit No. 68/82/T.S. 2/84. The plaintiffs of the suit are the appellants here.2. The plaintiff-respondents' case in the lower Court was that there was one Ram Chandra Singhania who left behind four sons, namely, Chhedilal, Madan Lal, Ramautar and Haridwar. The suit Plot No. 32 among other plots were owned by Ram Chandra Singhania and in the year 1950, the four sons entered into partition of their family property by registered deed and the suit Plot No. 32 under Khata No. 7 fell to the share of Haridwar Singhania (Defendant No. 2 the suit). However, subsequently, Defendant No. 2 ruined his business and he wanted ...
Tag this Judgment!