Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-08-2014
CRR-3948-2013 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 08.05.2014 1. CRR-3948-2013 Constable Bohar Singh ..Petitioner Versus Shamsher Singh and another ..Respondents 2. CRR-72-2014 Ajaib Singh ..Petitioner Versus Shamsher Singh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner(in both petitions).Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for respondent No.1(in both petitions) Mr.Neeraj Sharma, AAG, Punjab(in both petitions) REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) By way of this order, I shall dispose of CRR-3948-2013 Bohar Singh versus Shamsher Singh and another. and CRR-72-2014 Ajaib Singh versus Shamsher Singh and another. as these have arisen out of the same judgment dated 03.12.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sr.Muktsar Sahib and identical questions of law and facts being involved for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CRR-3948- Davinder Kumar 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused no.1 by the present appeal has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22 February 2005 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.239 of 2003, thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It has further been ordered that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellant along with original accused no.2 Smt.Ramibai Janu Khadme i.e. the mother of the appellant were charged with offence punishable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused no.1 by the present appeal has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22 February 2005 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.239 of 2003, thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It has further been ordered that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellant along with original accused no.2 Smt.Ramibai Janu Khadme i.e. the mother of the appellant were charged with offence punishable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-04-2014
Oral Judgment: ( P.V. Hardas, J.) Criminal Appeal 1330 of 2012 has been filed by original accused No.3, while Criminal Appeal 1364 of 2012 has been filed by original accused Nos.4 and 6 who take exception to the judgment of the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Malegaon, District Nashik dated 5 April 2010 in Sessions Case No.49 of 2001 convicting and sentencing the Appellants for offence punishable under Section 363 read with 34, 396 and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay file of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months and imprisonment for life respectively. Since both these Appeals arise from the same judgment, these Appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. At the outset it may be stated that original accused No.5 had filed Criminal Appeal 1212 of 2011 which was allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 3 May 2012. It appears that the present Appellants had not filed any appeal que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jan-31-2014
The appeal is filed against Judgment and order of Special Case No.66/2010, which was pending in the Children's Court created for the State for Goa at Panaji-Goa. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 I.P.C. and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 8 (2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be said as follows: The offence is committed against a girl child who was aged about 4 years at the relevant time. The accused was aged about 29 years and he was a married man. The father of the girl child was working as a security guard in campus known as œTropical Estate Private Ltd? at Morod, Sangolda and this complex is situated within the local jurisdiction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) The Appellant / original accused No.1 who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, Oros, by judgment dated 17 December 2007, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2007, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus: P.W. 11 Police Constable Nandkumar Gosavi who on 1 April 2007 was attached to Malwan Police Station, recorded the report of P.W. 1 Chandrakala at Exhibit 26. On the basis of the said report, he registered an offence against the accused and forwarded the papers to Police Station, Achara for further investigation. 3. P.W. 12 P.S.I. Krishna Kalantre, who was attached to Police Station, Achara, had received the papers from P.W. 11 P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.15/2009 which was pending in the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. The maximum sentence of imprisonment given is 10 years. Both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of this appeal can be stated as follows: At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was 60 years of age. She was unemployed lady and she was not having her own shelter. She was leaving in Panaji Municipal market. She used to do petty work of fish vendors and shop owners to earn her livelihood and she used to sleep on the platform in the fish market. 3. The incident took place on the night between 27/12/2008 and 28/12/2008 when the prosecutrix was sleeping in the fish market after midnight. The accused came there and he removed the blanket which was taken for c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2014
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) Appeal No. 172 of 2013 (SZ) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the order of the 1st respondent, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MoEF) dated 18.11.2013, granting Environmental Clearance (for short EC) to the 4th respondent, M/s. KGS Aranmula Air Port Ltd., to set up an airport at Mallappuzhasserry, Aranmula and Kidangannur villages in Kozencherry taluk of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. A writ petition has also been filed in W.P. (C). No. 6004 of 2012 challenging the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, the State of Kerala declaring the area as an industrial area and the said writ petition is still pending before the Honble High Court of Kerala. The brief facts of the appeal filed herein are stated as follows: 2. The proposed airport is being set up by the 4th respondent on the banks of the holy river Pampa, in an ecologically sensitive and environmentally diverse and rich area. Aranmula is a declared he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Apr-16-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, filed the present OA questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A1) and the Summary of Allegations dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A2). 2. The charge leveled against the applicant reads as under: It is alleged against Ct. Satish Chand, No.6234/DAP(PIS No.28892790) that on 19.06.2013, he along with Ct. Parmanand, No.1659/DAP was deployed on patrolling duty outside PHQ on the pavement from main gate to exit gate (X-17) and they were provided with WT sets. On that day, Inspector Ramesh Chander as routine, checked the staff detailed on duty at the various points of PHQ Guard and when at about 4 PM the Inspector noticed a motor-cycle was unauthorizedly parked at the pavement, he made search for the deployed staff who were found from their duty point. He called both the Constables through HC Kanwar Singh on W.T. sets and they were found coming from Exit Gate of PHQ. Wh...
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!