Court : Uttaranchal
Decided on : Apr-10-2013
Alok Singh, J (Oral). 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant through Jail Authorities. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate present in the Court, was requested to appear in this case on behalf of the appellant as Amicus Curiae. He had accepted the request of this Court. Paper book was handed over to him in the pre-lunch session. He had agreed to argue the matter after post lunch session. 2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Champwat in Special Sessions Trial No.30 of 2007 whereby learned trial court has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced her to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default, to further undergo 2 years additional imprisonment. 4. Brief facts of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Apr-09-2013
By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 15 Directors of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Amravati (Respondent No. 4) question the order dated 27.12.2011 passed by Respondent No. 2 District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, superseding it under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 1963 Act) and appointing an Administrator on it. The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation), Rules, 1967 framed under this Act are hereinafter referred to as 1967 Rules. 2. This Court has on 16.01.2012, restrained Administrator from taking charge of A.P.M.C. and thus elected body viz., petitioners still continue to function. 3. The Notice under Section 45 of 1963 Act for supersession is on various grounds which require scrutiny of material on record as the petitioners wish to contend that the Charges are not proved against them. But th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Decided on : Apr-08-2013
Praffulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011/22.10.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 204/2004 and Sessions Trial No. 204A/2007, whereby the said Court has convicted the accused appellants Dablu Singh alias Dampi and Michel Masih for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. Accused appellants have been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on that count. Accused appellants have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 75/2011 Reserved on:9. h January, 2013 Date of Decision:8. h April, 2013 % RAM DASS ....Appellant Through Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Narendra Kumar Choudhary, Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh and Mr. Ajeet Singh, Advocates. Versus STATE Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J.:1. The impugned judgment dated 18th November, 2010 convicts Ram Dass under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of Sunil and Somnath, sons of Om Prakash, by causing injuries on them with firearm on 22 nd April, 2006. The appellant has been convicted under Section 323 IPC, for injuries on Om Prakash, by giving him a push, when he tried to intervene. By order of sentence dated 20th November, 2010 he has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.43 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default S.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) PW 2 Shankarayya is the first informant in the present case. He was working as a labour contractor in Rajarambapu Cement Factory situated at Laxminagar, Miraj, Sangli. As a labour contractor, he used to engage labourers from various villages. Some of the labourers he had engaged were Daryappa (deceased), the appellant and PW 6 Deepak. Rooms were provided to the labourers to reside in the factory premises. The appellant was residing in room No.4. Deceased Daryappa was residing in room No.2. So ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Decided on : Apr-06-2013
..... was also made by lady constable before lodging her in police lock up. he says that from appellant heera bahadur rs.4500/- and nepali currency of denomination 1010 were recovered and from appellant dhan kumari rs.2080/- and nepali currency of denomination 500 were recovered. apart from this, nothing was recovered. if both the persons were traveling in the bus, obviously, both .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Decided on : Apr-03-2013
Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Present appellant, by way of present appeal, is assailing judgment and order dated 05.11.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 157 of 2010 whereby learned trial court has found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and has sentenced him to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for an offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; to serve rigorous imprisonment for five years for an offence punishable under Section 366 IPC; and to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC with the stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are on 11.04.2010, PW1 father of the prosecutrix has lodged a report with the police stating therein that on the previous evening of 10.04.2010, he had gone for labour work while her wife had gone to vegetable market; appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
Decided on : Mar-28-2013
On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) (Mavundla J and Ebersohn AJ) sitting as court of appeal): The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. JUDGMENT SHONGWE JA (MAYA, MALAN, MAJIEDT JJA, MBHA AJA concurring) [1] This appeal arises from the conviction and sentence on a charge of murder by the regional court magistrate (Polokwane). The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Mavundla J and Ebersohn AJ concurring). The appeal is before this court with leave of the court below. [2] The regional court magistrate came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of murder on the basis of dolus eventualis in that: he foresaw that what he did would cause an accident, but he decided to adopt an: (sic!) œI do not care? attitude, and that attitude of his that he did not care of what was going to happen when he shot in the air in the presence of other people, resulted in the death of the deceased. [3] The appellant was legally...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
Decided on : Mar-28-2013
On appeal from: Western Cape High Court (Cape Town) (Saba AJ sitting as court of first instance): The appeal is dismissed with costs on an attorney and own client scale. JUDGMENT MAYA JA (SHONGWE, PILLAY JJA, ERASMUS AND SWAIN AJJA concurring) [1] The central issue in this appeal concerns the interpretation of the deeming provisions of section 26(7) of the Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984, as amended (the Act), and more pertinently, whether they validate sale and franchise agreements concluded by the parties during the period of the respondents deregistration. [2] The respondent has its principal place of business in Cape Town and franchises an automotive paint and dent repair business and brand under the name Dents N All. Consequent to the appellants overtures to acquire the franchise, the parties concluded a sale agreement and a franchise agreement (the agreements) on 21 October 2010 and 13 January 2011, respectively. The purchase price of R1 750 000 was payable in five instalments ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-27-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:27. 03/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl A(MD)No.218 of 2007 Crl A(MD)No. 495 of 2007 & Crl A(MD)No.396 of 2008 Iyappan .. Appellant/2nd Accused in Crl A.No.218/07 Murugan .. Appellant/3rd Accused in Crl A.No.495/07 Karuppasamy .. Appellant/1st Accused in Crl A.No.396/08 Vs. State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City, Crime No.87 of 2006. .. Respondent/Complainant in all the Appeals. Criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.194 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court not II, Tirunelveli. !For Appellants ... Mr.N.Mohideen Basha (Crl.A.Nos.218 & 495/07) For Appellant ... Mr.S.P.Maharajan (Crl.A.No.396/08) ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian Addl.Public Prosecutor (All Appeals.) :COMMON JUDGMENT ...
Tag this Judgment!