Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)749
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was in the Indian Army holding the rank of Havildar, has challenged the order of dismissal dated 16.5.1994 and the letter dated 18.10.1996 by which the petitioner was denied pensionary benefits. 2. While the petitioner was in service in June, 1990, he was in his village on leave. There was some criminal case against him, and the petitioner was accused of having assaulted some persons. The trial court by order dated 16.7.1991 found the main accused Harbir Singh guilty under Section 302 IPC and the with Section 149 IPC. There were other accused and all the accused were further held guilty under Section 323 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and further sentenced to three months RI under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. On the basis of conviction by the trial court, the Brigadier Commander, 170 Infantry Brigade passed the following order of dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT151
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Bhola, herein after called the appellant, was found in possession of 80 grams of Charas wrapped in a piece of newspaper on 23.2.1987, at 9 a.m. on the northern side of platforms 8 and 9 near the latrine of New Delhi Rly Station. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 20 of Ndps Act and the learned Addl Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 4.9.88, found the appellant guilty of the said offence and convicted him accordingly. After giving an opportunity of hearing on the point of sentence, the learned Addl Sessions Judge on 16.9.88 sentenced him to undergo Rl for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. I lakh under Section 20 of Ndps Act. (2) Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the appellant through jail. Mrs. Meera Bhatia was appointed amices curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant as the appellant showed his inability to engage any Counsel of his choice. (3) The first question raised by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1972CriLJ399
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 135 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He has also been convicted for contravening Rule 126 P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the convictions and sentences passed on him.2. The petitioner was travelling on 20-44967 by Poona Bangalore Mail. When the train arrived at Belgaum Railway Station at about 12-30 hours. P. W. 1. Inspector of Central Excise, entered the compartment and on suspicion he questioned the accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1957CriLJ954
ORDERChandra Reddy, J.1. The accused was charged before the Sub-Magistrate, Kamalapuram under Sections 4-A and 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act. The case against him was that he was found in a state of drunkenness and was also distilling I. D. Arrack. In support of the prosecution case two witnesses were examined, P.W. 1, the Prohibition Sub-Inspector and P.W. 2, the Sub-Inspector of the Striking Force. The accused, while admitting that he was found in a state of drunkenness, denied that he was distilling ID Arrack at; the scene of offence. The Magistrate acquitted him under Section 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act, as in his opinion it was not made out beyond reasonable doubt that he was manufacturing illicit arrack. He convicted him under Section 4-A of the Madras Prohibition Act having regard to his admission, But he passed no sentence on the accused as he thought that 'the accused was truthful from the beginning to the extent of his drunkenness and also by reason of the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. Surendra Singh, Mr. B.H. Marlapalle learned senior counsel appeared for A-117, A-118, A-124 respectively and Mr. Raval, learned ASG duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel appeared for the respondent-CBI.2) The above said appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2006 and 31.07.2007respectively by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993.Charges:3) A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellants. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
APPEALS FILED UNDER ARMS ACT/EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT PART-6 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1060 of 2007 Sanjay Dutt (A-117) .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2007 Yusuf Mohsin Nulwalla (A-118) .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay . Respondent(s) AND Criminal Appeal No.1687 of 2007 Kersi Bapuji Adajania (A-124) .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.596 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1104 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.392 of 2011 ******** Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2007 Sanjay Dutt (A-117) .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2007 Yusuf Mohsin Nulwalla (A-118) .... Appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. 07.2019 CRL.REV.P. 316/2019 RAMWATI ........ Petitioner versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Saini, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State. SI Vinod Bhati, PS Kalkaji. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CRL.REV.P. 316/2019 & Crl.M.A.10202/2019 (for release after admonition or on probation) 1.... Petitioner impugns judgment dated 07.12.2018, whereby, appeal of the petitioner, impugning order of conviction dated 01.09.2018 and order on sentence dated 11.09.2018, has been dismissed.2.... Petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Sections 3IPC and Sections 3IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 Crl.Rev.P. 316/2019 Page 1 of 5 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 3IPC and 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH CO URT O F DE L HI AT NEW DE LHI % Judgment reserved on:04. h February, 2019 Judgment delivered on:13. h February, 2019 + CRL.A. 1091/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1695/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50253/2018 (Probation) RAJ KUMAR STATE versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr.Amit Kumar and Mr.Subhash Baghel, Advs. For the Respondent: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J CRL.A. 1091/2018 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1695/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50253/2018 (Probation) 1. Appellant impugns order on conviction dated 06.07.2018 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under section 3IPC and order on sentence dated 09.07.2018 directing the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. CRL.A. 1091/2018 Page 1 of 5 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2012 at around 9:00 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. t December 2018 CRL.A. 741/2018, Crl.M.(Bail) 1133/2018 & Crl. M.A. 28866/2018 (for giving benefit of probation) DILSHAD AHMAD ..... Appellant versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr.D.D.Pandey, Adv. Mr.Rohit Gupta, Advocate. For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Addl. PP for the State ASI Shailender Singh SOS-I/Crime Branch. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. Appellant impugns judgement dated 22.05.2018 convicting the Appellant for the offence under sectionIPC and order on sentence dated 14.06.2018 directing the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs 5,000/- for offence punishable under section 411 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs 5,000/- for offence punishable under section 482 IPC and in default t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1978CriLJ53
Prem Prakash, J.1. The Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, has obtained this rule in revision, Under Section 439 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, to enhance the sentences awarded to P. Gurnani and Kanhaiya Lai Gurnani Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). Each of them has been sentenced t0 a fine of Rs. 125/- and simple imprisonment till rising of the court by Sri V.N. Awasthi, Magistrate 1st Class, Lucknow.2. The case of the prosecution was that P. Gurnani was the proprietor of the shop carrying on the business under the name of M/s. Gurnani Provisions Stores and Kanhaiya Lal Gurnani used to sell food articjes at the said shop for and on behalf of P. G. Gurnani, On 31st August, 1969 Kanhaiyalal Gurnani sold 600 grams of 'Saboo Dane Ke Phool' to the Food Inspector, Sri Krishna Mohan Srivastava (P.W. 1) for Rs. 3.25 p. The Food Inspector served the accused with the notice on Form VI intimating there...
Tag this Judgment!