Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-11-2008
B.P. Katakey, J.1. This appeal by the convicts from jail is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 01.11.2001 recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-2, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 175(CH)/2000 convicting the appellants Under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.2.2000 around 2.00 P.M., the Officer-in-Charge of Dholla Police Station, Sri Rukumuddin Hazarika (PW14) along with his police party went to Dhola Ajokhowa Gaon in connection with operation against a banned organization, namely ULFA. During the course of operation, they were informed about a dead body, which was lying in the field. Thereafter, they went to the place where such dead body was lying and found the same to be of Kuntil Sonowal. On the same day, an FIR was also lodged by the wife of Kuntil Sonowal, namely Smti. Khirod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Apr-02-2008
P.K. Musahary, J.1. The 4 (four) appellants, all CRPF personnel, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- only to be paid by each of them and in default to undergo one year imprisonment for the offence of murder and also sentenced to suffer 6(six) months imprisonment for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to the informant and also sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment for the offence of assault and for using criminal force upon the informant public servant while he was discharging official duties byjudgment and order dated 20.12.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Sessions Trial 10 (NT/K) of 1998. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, the appellants preferred an appeal before this Court wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-01-2008
Reported in : 2009(239)ELT427(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order No. 1792-93/04-NB (S) dated 3.12.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. C/85-186/04-NB (S).2. We have heard Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan for the appellant and Sri Anand Mohan for respondents.3. The brief facts of the case are that the Preventive Officer of the Customs on the basis of specific information, on 24.12.1999, have intercepted a Maruti Gypsy No. UGE-9446 on Lucknow-Barabanki Highway near Safedabad Railway Crossing. There were three persons in the Gypsy. One Raj Kumar Sharma was driving the Gypsy, while two other occupants namely Shambhu Nath and Lal Bahadur, the respondents, were sitting in the vehicle. Both were residents of district Mathura. On enquiry, both respondents have admitted that they were having silver of foreign origin in the vehicle and told that they were travelling from Gorakhpur to Mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-01-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ146
Amar Saran and R.N. Misra, JJ.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Amit Chaurasia with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding and directing the respondents to register the FIR of the petitioner.2. We have heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent State and perused the record.3. It appears from the contents of the writ petition that one Dibyesh Pratap Singh came to the Mobile Repair Shop of the petitioner on 17.7.2008 at about 5 P.M. and abused him over some disputes on the repair of a mobile phone. The petitioner was also beaten by him. In the meantime, Dibyesh's father Devendra Pratap Singh also came there with five or six juniors lawyers and assaulted the petitioner by kicks and fists. He also gave a threat to his life. Whereas the police of Sigra police station registered a case at Crime No. 448 of 2008 under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2471
ORDERM.M.S. Bedi, J.1. This order will dispose of an application under Section 389, Cr. P.C. for suspension of judgment of conviction dated December 11, 2003 of Special Judge, Faridabad in case FIR No. 249, dated May 1, 2002 under Sections 384, 342, 120B, IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (sic) Police Station Hodal, District Faridabad.2. The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court i.e. Special Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated December 11, 2003. The statutory first appeal against the conviction order is pending in this Court as admitted. The sentence of imprisonment stands already suspended by granting him the concession of bail vide order dated January 6, 2004.3. The appellant-applicant referring to the merits of the cases submits that the appellant has been acquitted under Sections 342 and 120B, IPC raising a doubt regarding the stiltedly of prosecution version, the complainant Prabhu Dayal, P.W. 6 and Dr. Jagdish P.W. 7 has not supported the p...
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 : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-21-2008
Reported in : (2008)3GLR2215
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and Mr. D.C. Dave, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today.2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29-1-2007 (Annexure 'A' to the petition) passed by the State Government, granting approval under Section 65(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) for sale of land admeasuring 1890.74 sq.mts. in favour of the respondent No. 4-Trust, at the rate of Rs. 912/- per sq.mt., the consequential communication dated 20-2-2007(Annexure 'B' to the petition) of the District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-04-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(2)Raj1643
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Javed Masood and Syed Najib Hasan, appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk, who vide judgment dated July 25, 2003, convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 302 IPC:Both to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC:Both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.FACTS AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that on May 25, 1999 at 1 PM Sub Inspector of Police Station Kotwali Tonk recorded Parcha Bayan (Ex.P12) of Chuttu @ Nizamuddin (Pw. 5) wherein he stated that on the said day around 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-06-2008
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2352
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.Where can one go?This city has become a jungle,Hither serpants,Thither Mongooses dwell1. Uchchav Lal (since deceased) while subjected Khaju and Pappu, appellants in appeals No. 201/2004 and 401/2007, were indicted for having looted a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and killing Uchchav Lal, before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk, although Badri Lal and Smt.Kesanta, appellants in appeals No. 930/2003 and 931/2003, were charged under Sections 201 and 412 IPC. Learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants vide judgment dated June 2, 2003 thus:Rajendra, Bhanwar Pal, Pyare Lal, Rafeeq, and Khaju: Under Section 302/120B/149 & 396 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 307/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 326/149 IPC:Each to su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The issue in this appeal is whether a decision made by the appellant, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, on 14 December 2006, to discontinue a criminal investigation was unlawful. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Moses LJ and Sullivan J) held it to be so: [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin). That court accordingly quashed the Director’s decision and remitted it to him for reconsideration. In this appeal to the House the Director contends, as he contended below, that the decision was not unlawful. Mr Robert Wardle, the Director who made the decision under review, has now been succeeded in his office, but this change of office-holder does not affect the issue to be decided. The respondents are public interest organisations. The House has received written submissions on behalf of JUSTICE. The facts 2. By sections 108-110 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 it was made an offence triable here for a UK national or company to mak...
Tag this Judgment!