Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1989CriLJ279
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. In assailing the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, Mr. Dhankhar, learned Counsel for the accused petitioner, has raised three-fold contentions. The first is that there is no evidence as to where the sample remained for a period of 30 days, therefore, the possibility of sample being tampered with cannot be excluded. The second submission of Mr. Dhankhar is that the independent witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and, therefore, a finding should not have been recorded that 140 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from the possession of accused. The last submission of the learned Counsel is that an offence under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act (for short 'the Act') is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and, therefore is such which could have been dealt with under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act, 1958') and in view of the mandate of the legislature contain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. MA No. 434/2006 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing present OA, instituted on 17th January, 2006. Since there had been no serious objections raised by respondents and in view of the fact that it was an extreme case of compassion, finding sufficient cause, MA is allowed and delay is condoned the delay.2. Validity of Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2002, penalty of removal inflicted vide order dated 28.10.2002, as upheld vide communications dated 21.11.2002 and 17.06.2003 besides communication dated 30.07.2004 rejecting mercy petition, have been challenged in present proceedings.3. Admitted facts are that Shri Prem Kumar was initially appointed in Railways in the year 1977 as Casual Labour. Subsequently he was regularized in the year 1982 as Gangman, promoted as Ticket Collector in 1993 and lastly promoted as T.T.E. in Northern Railway, Moradabad Division. A criminal case No. 1166/86 was registered against him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Northern Railway, Morada...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. None appears today also on behalf of the appellants. The Court has requested Sri Neeraj Kumar Sanidh who is present in Court room to assist it as Amicus Curiae. 2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 14.08.2000 by which the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger held the present appellant, Arjun Rajak as also Jagdish Rajak, Dularchandra Rajak, Sahadeo Rajak and Dilip Rajak guilty of committing offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be pertinent to note that the present appellant along with the above named four others had been put on trial by the learned Judge by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 307/149, 448, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges except that of under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing the convicted persons under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge directed each of them to execu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD THURSDAY, THE11H DAY OF DECEMBER201420TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1534 of 2003 ( ) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.APPEAL NO. 269/2001 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (FAST TRACK COURT), THODUPUZHA DATED3001-2003. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC2261999 of J.F.C.M - I, IDUKKI DATED1511-2001. REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES, S/O SIVANANDAN, PUTHUVAL HOUSE, PAREMAVU BHAGOM, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM SRI.P.K.YUSUFF ISSUDDIN SRI.K.M.MOHAMED ABDURAHIMAN. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH DEPUTY RANGE OFFICER, VYRAMANY RANGE, VYRAMANY STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1977
ORDERV.K. Ahuja, J.1. This is a criminal revision filed by the petitioners under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 7-9-2002, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, dated 23-6-2000, vide which the petitioners were held guilty under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the petitioners were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.On realization of the fine, an amount of Rs, 25,000/- was payable as compensation to the LRs of the deceased.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30-11-1986, at 6.00 p.m., a rapat was lodged with the police by one Rattan Singh that on 30-11-1986, at about 11....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj2973
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 17.7.1985 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted him for offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), while acquitting him of offences under Sections 147, 148, 380 and 307 of IPC. However, instead of granting the benefit of probation, the learned trial Court has sentenced him to ten months' rigorous imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- and has directed that he shall undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Ram Dutt (PW. 1) lodged a report (Ex. P/1) at the Police Station, wherein he claimed that:On 15.3.1982, in the morning, around 10' O Clock, when he went to the temple of Hanumanji, which is near his shop, Shri Gopal (the appellant), Jagdish, Nihal Singh, Ram Bharosj, Om Prakash, Data Ram and Ram Kishan and other two unidentified persons came near him. At that time, Ram Kumar Brahmin was standing near the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Revision No.687/2009 20.02.2014 None for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-State. The present revision was filed in the year 2009, whereas the learned counsel for the applicant is not appearing in the case. Initially it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.6.2011 and again it was restored. Thereafter none appeared for the applicant even on today. Under such circumstances, the question of admission is considered. The respondent No.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced with six months' RI with fine of Rs.2000/- by the JMFC Theothar in Criminal Case No.200/2006. In Criminal Appeal No.220/2008 the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa vide judgment dated 15.1.2009 maintained the sentence but released the respondent No.1 on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed a compensation of Rs.10,000/- upon the respondent No.1. The applicant is the victim, who su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1984CriLJ260
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether the recovery of a large haul of opium from an accused person convicted under Section 9 of the Indian Opium Act would be a special reason within the meaning of Section 361 of the Code of; Criminal Procedure for declining the benefit of probation to him under S- 360 of the said Code or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act 1958, is the significant question necessitating this reference to the Division Bench. 2. On the 10th of Sept. 1976 at 5 A.M. Sushil Kumar petitioner was intercepted by a police party driving a car alone on the Grand Trunk road in the area of village Bahalgarh. The search of the car disclosed a small tank under the rear seat of the car containing 25 small packets of plastic, blue in colour weighing in all 65' kilograms. In the trial, that followed, the petitioner was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, who expressly declined the benefit of probation and sentenced h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1278; 1985CriLJ1495; 1985(2)SCALE1288; 1985Supp(1)SCC272; 1985(17)LC808(SC)
ORDER1. Four persons were convicted Under Section 304, Part II and Section 323, both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short), by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. They appealed to the High Court and the conviction of all except Surajbhan Under Section 304, Part II was set aside but the conviction Under Section 323 of the Code along with the sentence was maintained.2. The separate application for special leave by Surajbhan was rejected by this Court. Similarly, the prayer for special leave so far as Ram-chander and jai Bhagwan are concerned, was also refused and notice was issued in respect of Rajbir's application confined to the question of extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to him.3. Heard Mr. Malhotra for the accused Rajbir and Mr. Gujral for the State of Haryana. Special Leave is granted.4. From the judgment of the High Court it appears that though the sentence imposed for the offence Under Section 323 of the Code was six months, the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2271
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This appeal is by accused 1 and 2, a student and his father, in S. C. No. 128/91 on the file of the 5th Additional Special Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. They stand convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under Sections 420, 466, 468 and 471 with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. No separate sentence was ordered under Sections 465 and 120-B IPC. They faced trial with two others for the offences mentioned above. The 3rd accused was acquitted. The 4th accused is no more and the charge against him abated.2. The prosecution case was that they, along with CW. 1, an accused turned approver, hatched a conspiracy in order to forge a mark list of the Pre Degree Examination held in March, 1977 in which the first accused had appeared and to make use of it to secure admission for M. B. B. S. Course in the merit quota f...
Tag this Judgment!