Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VAD(Delhi)52; 80(1999)DLT221; 1999(50)DRJ315
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. In this petition following two questions arise for consideration: 1. Whether the complainant, being an aggrieved person could file the present petition under Article 227 ? 2. Whether in absence of the report of the Probation Officer as required under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4, the respondent could be released on probation by the learned MM? 2. First the facts in brief. Mrs. Praveen Soni/respondent claimed herself to be the tenant of premises No. A-2/37, Krishna Nagar, Delhi under the petitioner Mr. H.P. Vaid at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- excluding water and electricity charges since 1984. Though the petitioner had obtained signatures on various documents of Praveen Soni and husband, the petitioner was not issuing rent receipts. The respondent sent advance rent for the month of September, 1985 through money order which was duly acknowledged but as rent up to 30th April, 1985 by Mr. Vaid in his own writing. She filed a suit for permanent injunction....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)66
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions judge, Dausa dated 28th January, 1978.2. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 307/34, IPC by the learned trial Court, But he was acquitted of the offence under Section 307/34, IPC but convicted under Section 324, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.3. The learned Counsel for the accused-apellant has contended that looking to the nature and to the fact that the accused was below 21 years of age on the date occurrence, the learned lower Cort has erred in law in not extending the benefit of the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, It was also contended that the learned lower the age 21 years on the date when the judgment was pronounced.4. Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the State has contended that from the evidence on record the prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home to the accused. He has, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1974CriLJ437
ORDERRamachandra Raju, J.1. The respondent was convicted for offences punishable under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act and Section 8(1)(i) read with Section 85(ii) of the Gold Control Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each count with a direction for running of the two sentences concurrently by the IV City Magistrate, Hyderabad. On appeal by the respondent, the Chief City Magistrate confirmed the convictions, but instead of sentencing him to any punishment released him on probation of good conduct applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. This revision is filed by the State assailing the order of the Chief City Magistrate releasing the respondent on probation of good conduct2. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that (1) the respondent is not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in so far as the offence committed by the respondent, under the Gold Control, Act is conce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1996CriLJ376
ORDERSwatanter Kumar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Gurgaon. dated 5-7-1995. The prosecution challenged Rajesh alias Pappu for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code on the facts that on 21-6-1989 at about 9.00 P.M. Dalip Singh, father of Jagriti. was coming towards his house after answering the call of nature in village Manesar. On the way the petitioner slopped him and abused him, which attracted his daughter Jagrili towards the scene. She saw the petitioner stopping Dalip Singh while being armed with Kasola and was asking him to withdraw the suits which were pending between the parties. Jagriti made noise for help upon which the petitioner hit her with Kasola on her head and also assaulted her on her right hand resulting an injury to the finger of the right-hand. On these facts FIR No. 463 dated 22-6-1989 was registered under Sections 323 & 324 IPC. The petitioner was sent to the Court of J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR(SC)798; [2007(113)FLR1172]; [2007(4)JCR26(SC)]; (2007)IIILLJ156SC; 2007(6)SCALE276; (2007)9SCC86
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These two appeals by special leave involving common question of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Respondents herein were employed on work charge basis. One of the workman was transferred. Respondents were opposing the said order of transfer. They allegedly assaulted one of their senior officers as the said order of transfer despite protests was not cancelled. A First Information Report was lodged. Their services were terminated on 8.8.1994. They were found guilty in the criminal case and were convicted by the learned Trial Judge by an order dated 29.4.2000. They preferred an appeal there against. However, an industrial dispute was raised questioning the said order of termination. The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication by the State Government. By an Award, re-instatement of the respondents was directed by the said Court with continuity of service but without bac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1970Cal437,1970CriLJ1341
Das, J.1. Revisional Applications Nos. 635 and 636 of 1969 and Appeal No. 476 of 1969, are heard together and this judgment will cover all of them.2. Aravinda M. Sinha, Asstt. Collector of Customs is the applicant in all these matters against orders passed by different Presidency Magistrates under Section 135, Customs Act and Rule 126P of the D. I. Rules. The accused persons were convicted under both Customs Act and D. I. Rules, Rule 126P but the sentences were different. In Rule No. 635 and appeal No. 476, the learned Magistrate dealt with them under the Probation of Offenders Act on executing a bond and undertaking thereby to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years and appear to receive sentence whenever called upon.3. In Rule No. 436, the learned Magistrate sentenced the accused to fine onlyunder Section 135, Customs Act and refrainedfrom passing any sentence under Rule 126P ofthe D. I. Rules. 4. Under the Customs Act, the convictions were based on a finding that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1996CriLJ663
ORDERSwatanter Kumar, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that one Ballu Ram, brother of Mahabir, was residing near National Service Station, Meham Gate, Bhiwani. Along with his brother they used to work as contractors in the M.I.T.C. Department. On 25-2-1989 at about 8.00 P.M. they were sitting in National Service Station. Later Ballu Ram and Umed, nephew of Ballu Ram, were strolling on the foot path on the right side. Truck No. HRA-3488 came from the Bus stand side, Bhiwani, with rash and negligent speed. That truck climbed on the footpath and caused the accident hitting Ballu Ram from behind. Umed Singh also sustained some injuries. The said truck was being driven by Maan Parkash son of Day a Nand, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-accused. The said driver left the truck arid fled away. The petitioner-accused was identified by Umed Singh, who lodged the complaint on the spot itself. Injured Ballu Ram was hospitalised in General Hospital, Bhiwani b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERC.R. Kumaraswamy, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, I have perused the records.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments in respect of considering the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the case in hand. Considering the submissions of both sides, the point that arises for my consideration is: 'Whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?'3. The relevant facts of the case leading to this revision petition are as follows:That on 31.5.2002 at about 9.35 accused No. 1 was driving the KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA 09 F 1271 at Shifa Cross, Bhatkal. At that time, the charge sheet witness No. 1 was alighting from the said bus. The bus moved all of a sudden and she fell down and sustained injuries. The bus driver of the said bus was driving the bus with high speed and also in a negligent manner. Therefore this accide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006CriLJ4591
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the petitioner and Respondent No. 1. Petitioner is the husband and Respondent No. 1 is the wife. A case was instituted against the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He came to be convicted by the trial Court. The matter went in appeal. Before the appellate Court, the matter was settled between the parties. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 obtained divorce by mutual consent. Respondent No. 1 agreed not to press for the petitioners conviction. The appellate Court maintained the conviction of the petitioner and gave him benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders' Act.2. Firstly the petitioner has filed Criminal Revision Application No. 255 of 2004 against the order of the Sessions Judge because no appeal was maintainable. When this Revision Application came up before learned single Judge, Justice Khanwilkar passed an order referring the Revision Application to a larger Bench.3. Thereafter, apprehending that the Judges ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1243; 1996(2)WLC24
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J.1. On information received by police on 11-9-85, the police party went to the field of Dewa Ram and found the accused petitioner distilling illicit liquor. The illicit liquor of 2 1/2 bottles was seized from the accused petitioner Budh Ram. 250 grams from the liquor seized was sent for chemical examination and after investigation, the accused was charged and tried under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. After trial, the trial Court has convicted the accused petitioner for six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. in default of payment of fine, one month's rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar. His appeal was also dismissed.2. Both the courts have refused to give the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1959, on the ground that the accused is punished under the provisions of the Excise Act where the minimum sentence of six months and fine of Rs. 200/- is provided and as su...
Tag this Judgment!