Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to transfer the petitioner from the 3rd respondent Central Prison to the 5th respondent Central Prison within the time stipulated by this Court.) In our world prisoners are still laboratories of torture, warehouses in which human commodities are sadistically kept and where spectrums of inmates range from driftwood juveniles to heroic dissenters. - Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer 1. To ensure that such life is not suffered by this prisoner and that a reasonably dignified life is made available to him, a demand has been made that there must be a direction to the respondents to transfer the petitioner from the Central Prison, Madurai (3rd respondent) to the Central Prison, Odisha. 2. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 25.06.2015, which has been forwarded to the R4 to R6 through the 3rd respondent Brief Fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in S.C.No.184 of 2011 dated 29.04.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant, the sole Accused in S.C.No.184 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, who stands convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and under Section 27 of The Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for offence under Section 302 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for offence under Section 307 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (Allikulam), Chennai 600 003 dated 28.07.2016 made in M.P. No.2083 of 2016 is illegal.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore (Allikulam), Chennai in M.P. No.2083 of 2016. 2. On 24.06.2016, around 6.40 a.m., one Swathi, who was standing in the Nungambakkam Railway Station, was done to death in connection with which, the Railway Police registered a case. Later, this case was transferred to the file of F-3 Nungambakkam Police Station and investigation is being done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam. 3.During the course of investigation, it transpired that the CCTV camera in a building near the Nungambakkam Railway Station had captured the video footage of a person whom the police suspect to be the assailant. In this connection, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer in W.P. No.1032 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O. (D) No.872 dated 07.12.2015 and quash the same and further, direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the Advisory Board report dated 11.05.2012 and release the petitioner prematurely. W.P. No.2518 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records in G.O. (D) No.935, Home (Prison IV) Department dated 28.12.2005 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. W.P. No.6416 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent in G.O. (D) No.932, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 28.12.2015 and to quash the same as illegal.) Common Ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
(Prayers: This Criminal Reference Case is filed under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of death sentence awarded to accused 1) Basavaraj @ Basya 2) Palya 3) Yankappa 4) Ramesh @ Ramya by the judgment and order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Yadgir in S.C. No.48/2010. This Criminal Appeal is filed Under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the Judgment of conviction dated 03.10.2012 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Yadigir in S.C.No.48/2010, convicting the accused/appellant punishable under Sections 120-B, 396, 397 and 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 201 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 98 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.) Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. The reference by the court below as well as the appeal preferred against the judgment of the court below are heard and considered together. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the Police Sub-Inspector, Saidap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.171 OF2016(@ S.L.P. (Criminal) No.7701 of 2012) State of Gujarat & Anr. Appellant(s) Versus Lal Singh @ Manjit Singh & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated August 23, 2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Writ Petition No.1620 of 2011 whereby the High Court entertaining the Writ Petition had opined that the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Government of Gujarat declining to grant the benefit of premature release to the first respondent herein is illegal and further directed the State Government to reconsider his case and take a fresh decision in the light of the discussions made in the impugned order and further to release him on parole for a period of three months on furnishing personal bond/security bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2007 when he was released on furlough, he overstayed his furlough leave by 132 days. On account of this, three days of remission was cut off for each day of overstay. Thereafter, in the year 2012, the petitioner was released on furlough on 3.12.2012. On that occasion, he overstayed his furlough leave by 31 days. Due to this overstay, four days of remission was cut off for each day of overstay. The prayer of the petitioner is that the prison punishment be waived or reduced to cutting of remission of one day for each day of overstay. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, he preferred two applications for parole and furlough which came to be rejected. As far as his case that on two occasions, his parole and furlough applications were rejected is concerned, the petitioner has stated that he has no grievance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Application No.1156 of 2015 has been filed by the applicants under Judge's summons under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC, praying to condone the delay of 54 days in preferring appeal against the order dated 17.09.2014 passed in Application No.4969 of 2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997, passed by the learned Master. Application No.1157 of 2015 has been filed by the applicants under Judge's summons under Order XIV Rule 12 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC, praying to permit them to file appeal against the order dated 17.09.2014 passed in Application No.4969 of 2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997 by the learned Master. Application No.1158 of 2015 has been filed by the applicants under Judge's summons under Order XIV Rule 12 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC, praying to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the order dated 17.09.2014 in Application No.4969 of 2014 in E.P.No.48 of 1997, passed by the learned Master. Application No.1159 of 2015 has been filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J. Oral: 1. Present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 21.02.2000 and an order on sentence dated 03.04.2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, in Session Case No.11/97, in case FIR No.364/96 registered under Sections 498A/302/34 IPC at Police Station Bhajanpura, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and they were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. 2. At the outset, we may notice that appellant No.1, Smt.Angoori Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, has since died. 3. The brief fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2. A very short question is involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against the Notification issued by the Home Department dated 23.02.2012. By this Notification, Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules was amended and after sub-rule (10), sub-rule 11 to 19 were added. 3. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC by Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2011. In our opinion, the only relevant fact is that the conviction and sentence has been interalia recorded for the offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC i.e kidnapping. 3A. The case of the petitioner is that he preferred an application for furlough, however, in view of the notification dated 23.02.2012, he took it back. The petitioner took his application for furlough back becaus...
Tag this Judgment!