Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-18-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. On 20 April 2005 the appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of rape of a child under 13, contrary to section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1) A person commits an offence if — (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis; and (b) the other person is under 13. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. 2. For the purpose of sentence, the prosecution accepted the appellant’s version of the facts, namely, that the accused was 15 at the time of the offence, the complainant had consented to intercourse and she had told him that she was 15. On 8 July 2005 Judge Hone sentenced him to a 12 month detention and training order. The appellant appealed on the grounds that (1) the conviction violated his right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence under article 6 of the Convention, because it was an offence of strict liabili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-16-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ262
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Totally two persons were tried in S.C. No. 29 of 2005 on the file of Additional Court of Sessions (Fast Track Court) Dharmapuri under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. A.2 was acquitted by the learned Trial Judge for the charge under Section 201 I.P.C. However A.1 was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C, for which he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- carrying a default sentence for the offence of murder and for causing disappearance of evidence of offence, he stands sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Therefore A.1 alone is before this Court in this appeal. The State has not challenged the acquittal of A.2 till date.2. A.1 and A.2 are the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Valarmathi respectively. The charge against the accused is that on 25.9.2002 at about 9.00 p.m. at the matrimonial home at Kottrapatti Ko...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-13-2008
Reported in : (2008)5MLJ261
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09.6.2005 made in O.A. No. 1027 of 2004, the petitioners, who are the Chairman, Commissioner of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti [for short, 'NVS'] functioning under the Ministry of HRD at New Delhi as well as the Deputy Director of NVS at Nongriss Hills, Shillong at Meghalaya State, have filed the present writ petition. 2. By the aforesaid order, the CAT set aside the order of termination of the first respondent dated 13.6.2003, confirmed by the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the appellate authority, and directed reinstatement of the first respondent with all consequential benefits.3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 11.10.2006 and also granted an interim stay on the same day. When the first respondent filed M.P. No. 2 of 2006 to vacate the stay order, this Court confirmed the stay and dismissed the vacate stay application. It directed the disposal of the main writ petition at an earl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-13-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ215; 2008(5)KarLJ551
A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on a trial held by the Fast Track Court-V, Mysore.2. Sans unnecessary details the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under:Lakshmi (P.W. 1) is the wife of the accused and Madashetty (P.W. 2) is her father. Mahadeva (deceased) was the son of Madashetty (P.W. 2) and brother of Lakshmi (P.W. 1), whereas Sunanda (P.W. 7) is the wife of Mahadeva (deceased). Somanna (C.W. 1) is the younger brother of Lakshmi (P.W. 1). The marriage of Lakshmi (P.W. 1) was held with the accused about 8 years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock, they have a female child aged about 7 years. The accused was a drunkard and was not providing food and clothes to his wife and she was harassed by cruel treatment of the accused and therefore, about 3 months earlier to the incident she came to the house of her father Madashetty (P.W. 2) alo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-11-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Carswell. I am in full agreement with it, and for the reasons that he gives would restore the order of the judge and dismiss CD’s application for judicial review. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Carswell. I am in full agreement with it, and for the reasons he gives I would allow the Commissioners’ appeal and dismiss the respondent’s application for judicial review. LORD CARSWELL My Lords, 3. The appellants in this appeal are the Life Sentence Review Commissioners (“the Commissioners”), who have a number of functions under the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 (“the 2001 Order”) in relation to prisoners in Northern Ireland sentenced to imprisonment for life. Their major task is to decide whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-11-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. Council Directive 85/374/EEC (the “product liability directive”) provides in article 1 that “the producer shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product". Liability is strict: by article 4, all that the injured person need prove is “the damage, the defect and the causal relationship between defect and damage". The primary meaning of “the producer” is the manufacturer, but there circumstances in which someone else can be deemed to be the producer. For example, a supplier may be treated as the producer “unless he informs the injured person, within a reasonable time, of the identity of the producer": see article 3. 2. Article 10 provides for a limitation period of three years from the date on which the plaintiff became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the damage. But article 11 contains an additional, “long-stop” period: “Member States shall provide in their legislation t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jun-10-2008
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR400(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the order impugned dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 96 of 2004 whereby the learned Principal Judge while allowing the petition filed on behalf of the O.P. No 2 in a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC enhanced the amount of maintenance suo motu without consent of the petitioner and beyond the scope of relief as sought for.2. Short fact of the case was that the O.P. No. 2 Achho Devi admitted to be the wife of the petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC demanding monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- from the petitioner. Though it was admitted by the petitioner husband in respect of a criminal case in which both the parties entered into compromise in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1994 with certain terms and conditions laid down in the compromise petition and the same was disposed of by the 1st Addition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)ALD163; 2008(5)ALT7
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order of Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No. 168 of 1998, dated 06.11.2002. In exercise of appellate powers under Section 20 of Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereafter called, the Act), the learned Chief Judge, confirmed the order of learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dated 03.04.1998 in R.C.No. 436 of 1993, whereby and whereunder petitioner was directed to vacate the premises bearing mulgi No. 3-5-1145/1 situated at Kachiguda 'X' Roads, Hyderabad. Though the jural relationship is denied by petitioner, for the sake of convenience, petitioner is referred to as tenant and the respondent is referred to as landlord in this order. Respondent (landlord) is resident of Alberts, Canada, and he sued for eviction of tenant through his General Power of Attorney (GPA) Sri Thakur Ratan Singh. The eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant failed to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-06-2008
Reported in : (2008)113ITD655(Delhi)
1. These appeals of the assessee were decided by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 9th March, 2007 reported as Smt. Krishna Verma v. Asstt. CIT (2007) 109 TTJ (Del) (SB) 193Ed. Thereafter, the assessee filed miscellaneous applications bearing Nos. 327 and 264/Del/2007. The said miscellaneous applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 24th Aug., 2007.2. In the miscellaneous applications filed, the grievance of the assessee was that the Tribunal had decided only one ground of appeal which related to the defect in the notice issued under Section 158BC by giving less than 15 days notice to the assessee to file block return and this Tribunal did not adjudicate upon the other grounds of appeal raised in the above appeals filed by the assessee. Since the Special Bench constituted to decide whole of the appeal and certain other legal grounds involving jurisdictional aspect, which were raised but have not been adjudicated upon, there was a mistake in the o...
Tag this Judgment!