Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
..... was served upon the petitioner, when was posted as incharge of the police post barwala levelling allegations that a small child of about two years of age, a son of nepali labourer working at a poultry farm known as amit poultry farm, barwala, who had fallen in the water tank and died, when information in this regard was received by the ..... reached there for taking necessary action. a compromise was got arrived at between the owner of amit poultry farm, namely, nitin garg and the father of the deceased child, a nepali labourer, named ramdev, where a sum of `60,000/- was paid by the owner of the poultry farm to the labourer, who was allowed to go away to an unknown .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.384/1998 Reserved on:13. h January, 2014 Date of Decision:19. h February, 2014 % OM PARKASH @ RAM KIRPAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, Additional Public Prosecutor. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: Om Prakash, the appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) by the impugned judgment dated 30th May, 1998 arising out of FIR No.217/1991, police station Dabri. By order on sentence dated 30th May, 1998, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 324 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The sentences were to run concurr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. This case was filed by the applicant on 03.06.2013, and it was listed before the Vacation Bench on 04.06.2013, when notices were issued to the respondents on admission, and also on interim relief, and the case was ordered to be listed before the Vacation Bench on 07.06.2013. It may be noted here that though the Vacation Benches of this Tribunal are headed by single Members of this Tribunal, they exercise all the powers of Division Benches. 2. The Vacation Bench on 07.06.2013 considered the case of the applicant for grant of interim relief in detail, and disallowed the prayer for interim relief. 3. Thereafter, an MA No.1865/2013 came to be filed by the applicant on 19.07.2013, reply to which was also filed by the respondents, and the OA along with the MA, was heard in part firstly on 13.08.2013, and finally on 18.09.2013, and then reserved for orders. Voluminous documents of the relevant departmental records were submitted by the respondents, which have sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : New Zealand Court of Appeal
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
(Given by White J) Introduction [1] On 20 January 2012 the police executed search warrants at the properties of the first and fourth respondents, Messrs Kim Dotcom and Bram van der Kolk. Acting under the warrants, which had been obtained the previous day from a District Court Judge, the police seized more than 135 electronic items, including laptops, computers, portable hard drives, flash storage devices and servers, containing an estimated 150 terabytes of data. [2] The search warrants were obtained under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 (the MACMA) at the request of the Department of Justice of the United States of America which is seeking the extradition of the four respondents to face charges in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia of criminal copyright offending and money laundering involving substantial sums of money. [3] The police also obtained warrants for the arrest of the four respondents and they were arrested at the same t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
1. The facts of this case can fairly be described as exotic, but very few of them are relevant to the present appeal. Dr Williams claims to be the victim of a fraud instigated by the Nigerian State Security Services which occurred in 1986. His case is that he was induced to serve as guarantor of a bogus transaction for the importation of foodstuffs into Nigeria. In connection with that transaction, he paid $6,520,190 to an English solicitor, Mr Reuben Gale, to be held on trust for him on terms that it should not be released until certain funds had been made available to him in Nigeria. Dr Williams says that in fraudulent breach of that trust, Mr Gale, knowing that those funds were not available to him in Nigeria, paid out $6,020,190 of the money to an account of the Central Bank of Nigeria with Midland Bank in London, and that he pocketed the remaining $500,000. The Central Bank is said to have been party to Mr Gale's fraud. The Bank applied for an order setting aside the permission gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-18-2014
Criminal Misc.No.M-35 of 2014 {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-35 of 2014 Date of Decision: 18th February, 2014 Bajrang Saini .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin Kaushal, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Nipun Vashist, Advocate, for the complainant. *** Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Bajrang Saini who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 365, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.446, dated 09.11.2013, registered at Police Station, Dharuhera, District Rewari. Learned counsel contends that a money transaction has been given shape of a criminal case. According to the prosecution, Nepal Singh was allegedly kidnapped by the petitioner and his Co.accused but on the date of alleged occurrence, the police of Kotputli (Rajasthan) recorded the state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-18-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE18H DAY OF FEBRUARY201429TH MAGHA, 1935 OP (CAT).No. 28 of 2014 (Z) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA.NO. 726 OF2011OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM --------------------- PETITIONERS / RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI-110 011.2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, ARMY HEADQUARTES DHQ (PO), NEW DELHI-110011.3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, SOUTHERSN COMMAND PUNE-411001. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI RESPONDENTS / APPLICANTS : ----------------------------------------------- 1. N. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED FROM GARRISON ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL) (I) KATARIBAGH, NAVAL BASE (PO), KOCH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-18-2014
1. The applicants are the accused in S.T.C. No. 651/2005, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Navapur [District : Nandurbar]. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under Section 153-A of the IPC and Section 295-A of the IPC. The applicants made separate applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) before the Magistrate, contending that the charge sheet had been filed beyond the period of limitation, and that, the cognizance of the alleged offences could not be taken in view of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"]. The said applications were rejected by the Magistrate by a common order dated 26-3-2013. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Court by filing the present Application, invoking the inherent powers of this Court. The applicants pray that the order passed by the Magistrate be quashed and set aside and the applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) be allowed. 2. I have heard Mr. G.S. Rane, the learned Counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-18-2014
Dost Muhammad Khan, J: 1. This single judgment shall decide both the above titled appeals because the same have arisen out of a common judgment rendered by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.202/1996, Criminal Revision No.245/1996 and Murder Reference No.379/1996; also because the same are the result of a single judgment given by the learned trial Judge, thus, the exercise of re-appraisal of the same evidence is to be carried out to reach at a proper conclusion. 2. Precise but relevant facts leading to the present tragedy are that on 25.08.1994 at about 8:00 pm, complainant Muhammad Sadiq (PW-6) was present in his sugarcane crushing machine, installed in his shop, opposite thereof was the shop of Muhammad Ayub, deceased, who along with his brother Abid Hussain deceased, was present there and were busy in chatting, when in the meanwhile appellants (i) Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din @ Babu, (ii) Ahmad @ Muhammad Ahmad (iii) Amanat Ali, (iv) Liaqat Ali (v) Allau-ud- Din and (vi) Neh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-18-2014
Criminal Misc.No.M-44299 of 2013 {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-44299 of 2013 Date of Decision: 18th February, 2014 Pawender Partap Singh & Anr.Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Nitin Kaushal, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Nipun Vashist, Advocate, for the complainant. *** Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioneRs.Pawender Partap Singh and Kesar Singh who have been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 365, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.446, dated 09.11.2013, registered at Police Station, Dharuhera, District Rewari. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and the aggrieved person, namely, Nepal Singh had stated to the police at Kotputli that he was not kidnapped by any body and was proceedings towards Kotputli on his own...
Tag this Judgment!