Court : Punjab and Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal not S-166-SB of 2002 Date of Decision: September 05, 2013 Anil Kumar Goyal ...Appellant VERSUS U.T.Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent-U.T.Chandigarh. **** INDERJIT SINGH, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2002, passed by the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, whereby, he was held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half month. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.10.1998 on receiving wireless message from police control room that A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN481
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Accused-appellants, Ram Chandra and Kishan Das, were tried along with Ramotar and Smt. Ladi under Sections 307, 326, 147, 149 and 323, IPC, for causing, on 24-3-1971, simple injuries on the person of Sita Ram and simple and grievous huts to Guljari (P.W. 3). Learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted accused Ramotar and Mst. Ladi of the charges framed against them. Accused-appellant Ram Chandra was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 307, and 147, IPC. He was convicted under 326, IPC. and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of which to suffer imprisonment for 15 days. Kishan Das has convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 280/- in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the accused-appellants have come up in appeal before this Court.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * % + STATE LUCKY CRL.A.539/2016 versus Reserved on:05. 05.2017 Delivered on:17. 05.2017 ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR : Mr.Arun Kr.Sharma, APP : Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj. JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J1 The State has called in question the correctness of the order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.7/2014 whereby the accused person/respondent, though has been convicted under Sectionread with section 34 of the IPC, but has been let off on probation of good conduct, subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of like amount before the Probation Officer to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of probation and in the meantime to keep peace and good behavior for a period of one year from the date of furnishing of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer in H.C.P. No.1441 of 2007: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of habeas corpus and quash the sentence imposed on the petitioner in S.C. No.197/98 dated 22.03.1999 and direct the second respondent to set the petitioner at liberty from illegal detention at Central Prison, Coimbatore.) Common Order B. Rajendran and P.N. Prakash, JJ. 1. This Special Bench has been constituted to untie the Gordian knot and answer the following questions which arose under the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 (for brevity the Borstal Schools Act ).PART - I (referred by a 3 Judge Bench comprising A. Selvam, B. Rajendran and P.N. Prakash JJ.) 1. Whether a Court is empowered to act under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act only upon arriving at a finding of conviction? 2 Whether the term imprisonment in Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, would include imprisonment for life ? 3 Whether the decision rendered by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties both the writ petitions are taken for final hearing and disposed at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Senior Counsel Shri S.D. Lotlikar, appointed by this Court to assist the Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1/2013. Also heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.G. Dessai in Writ Petition No.101/2013, representing the writ petitioner, the original accused. Also heard Prosecutors representing the State in both the writ petitions. 3. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that the Writ Petition No.1/2013 is a Suo Motu Writ Petition taken up by this Court by giving suitable directions vide order dated 24/01/2013 (Coram : F.M. Reis, J.). Said directions were given in two proceedings filed before this Court, one being Criminal Revision Application No.49/2012 and another one being Criminal Writ Petition No.9/2013. In both these proceedings filed by the private individuals, not concerned with the matter, p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IAD(SC)344; AIR1998SC788; 1998CriLJ1106; [1999(82)FLR593]; JT1998(1)SC124; (1999)IILLJ694SC; 1998(1)SCALE136; (1998)2SCC383; [1998]1SCR143; 1998(1)LC406(SC)
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. The respondent has been served but has not put in an appearance.2. The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. In appeal, the Sessions Court upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence and directed that the appellant be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering a bond for good conduct in the sum of Rs. 5,000 and furnishing a surety for the like amount.3. By reason of the appellant's conviction, the respondent, in whose employ the appellant was, dismissed him from Government service. The dismissal was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the order dated 25th March, 1985, which is under appeal, the writ petition was summarily dismissed.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the convictio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi267b; ILR1997Delhi22
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. There are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1749/92, 1631/92, the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made there from have been banned. In Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made there from. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991. 2. In so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)333; 2(1997)CLT273; 67(1997)DLT145; 1997(42)DRJ131
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) There are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1631/92, 1749/92 the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made there from have been banned. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made there from. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991.(2) In so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(50)ECC138; JT1994(7)SC577; 1994(4)SCALE1138; 1995Supp(1)SCC707; [1994]Supp6SCR120; [1995]98STC32(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The validity of the levy of education cess and rural employment cess created by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989 is called in question in these writ petitions preferred by several the estates in West Bengal.Legislative Background:2. For a proper appreciation of the questions arising herein, it is necessary to have a glimpse of the legislative history behind the impugned Amendment Act. The West Bengal Legislature enacted. The West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1953 and the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976 to provide for primary education throughout the State and to provide employment in rural areas respectively. For raising funds for the said purposes, the State Legislature imposed two cesses upon certain lands and buildings in the State. Since the relevant provisions of both the enactments are similar, it would be sufficient to notice the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1398
ORDERH.N. Kapoor, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-6-1975 passed by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur in Cr. Appeal No. 79 of 1975 confirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 304A and the sentence of two years' R. I. under that section.2. The prosecution case is that on 13-9-1973 at about 1-30 P.M. one Sunit Kumar aged about 14 years, who was going on a cycle towards the clock-tower on Ambala Road near Darpan Talkies in the city of Saharanpur, was knocked down by bus No. USV 5226, was crushed and run over by the left wheels of the bus resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot. The bus was being driven by the applicant who was said to be driving the bus rashly and negligently. The applicant had taken the defence that the boy was knocked down by another bus which speeded away and the applicant who was behind that bus had stopped his bus and was wrongly implicated in this case. His defence was not accepted and both the courts below found the pro...
Tag this Judgment!