Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996ACJ199; 1996(1)BomCR70; 1995CriLJ4223; 1994(2)MhLj1769
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Police lock-up or death trap Police lawlessness or rule of law Police muscle or personal modesty Police harassment or human rights Yet again a case of custodial death has given rise to myriad hard-touching and soul searching questions. In this country where rule of law is inherent in each and every action and right of life and liberty is prized fundamental right adorning highest place amongst all important fundamental rights, whether life has no meaning to a person in police custody Whether personal modesty, decency, dignity on arrest of a person are increasingly exposed to third-degree practices which over-step the bounds of propriety How long, harsh, crude, oppresssive, excessive and torturous third-degree methods to the arrested person in the name of seeking information or investigation can be allowed to continue Whether police personnel are custodians of law and order or law unto themselves and depredators of civil liberties Whether to strip a person of his clothes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992CriLJ167; ILR1991KAR1146; 1991(1)KarLJ266
ORDER1. The sole point to be determined in this Revision Petition filed under Ss. 397 and 398 read with S. 401, Cr.P.C. is : Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davangere (for short 'the Magistrate') has committed illegality in dismissing under S. 203, Cr.P.C. a private complaint (P.C. No. 19/90) filed by the petitioner against the respondents under S. 200, Cr.P.C. by order dated 23-6-90 on the ground of want of sanction under S. 197, Cr.P.C. to prosecute the respondents after having taken cognizance of the offences under Ss. 170, 166, 415, 417, 416 and 419 all read with S. 34, I.P.C. and thereafter recording the sworn statement of the complainant and two witnesses on 4-6-90 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as under : (a) Petitioner is an Advocate residing at Davangere. He claims to be an active member and worker of the Cong (I) party and a dedicated co-operator who held the reins of a Co-operative Institution called 'Bhadra Sahakara Sakkare Kharkana Niyamith, Doddaba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1963CriLJ650
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. These two appeals are against the judgment of the Special Judge, S.P.E. Cases, at Secunderabad in C.C.No. 19 of 1959 on his file. There were three accused in that case namely B.N. Murthy, the appellant in C.A. No. 394 of 1960, who was A-1; C. Narayana, the appellant in C.A. No. 397 of 1960, who was A-2 and D.K. Chandraiah, who was A-3. A-3 was acquitted by the lower Court and we are not concerned with A-3 in these proceedings since there is no appeal relating to him.2. Six charges were framed against the accused as follows:Charge No. Accused Section 1. A1 to A3 Under Section 120-B, I.P.C alleging that the three ac- cused conspired together with the object of depriv- ing the Central Govern- ment of its legitimate re- venue by A-1 issuing bogus permits and making illegal transport of tobacco and with the object of cheating one Bhupathi Chetty of Madras by making him part with monies 2. A-l. Under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (I) (d) of the Prevention of Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All551; [1960(1)FLR477]; (1960)IILLJ146All
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one Altafur Rahman, who was an employee in the Central Excise Department. According to the petitioner after having passed his B.Sc., examination in the year 1943 he joined as an Inspector Central Excise and was posted at Mogha in the district of Feerozpur. He, according to the petition, carried on his duties efficiently and diligently to the utmost of his capacity and in 1952 he was posted at Jhinjhana Range, district Muzaffarnagar, from where he was transferred to the Cigarette Factory by the order dated 8th September, 1952. As alleged by the petitioner, there was one Dharma a tobacco cultivator who got displeased with the petitioner as he wanted certain remissions in the assessments made by him, but the petitioner refused. Therefore, he lodged a complaint against the petitioner to the Assistant Collector, Meerut, upon which the Assistant Collecor, Meerut, asked the petitioner by a letter dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(I)OLR779
B.P. Ray, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C') filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance taken in I.C.C. No. 445 of 2007 for offence under Sections 177/181 of the Indian Penal Code 'in short, ('I.P.C.').2. The brief story of the complainant is that during filing of nomination papers for 57-Brahmagiri Assembly Constituency of Puri District in the year 2004, the present petitioner filed his nomination concealing information regarding holding of his shares and his spouse in a company running in the name and style, 'Neelachal Builders Pvt. Ltd.' The complainant before the trial Court was the Sub-Collector, Puri-cum-Returning Officer of Bhrahmagiri Assembly Constituency. On the basis of the complaint, lodged by one Pramod Kumar Pradhan, an enquiry was conducted which culminated in filing of the complaint before the S.D.J.M., Puri. On the basis of the complaint petition and the documents provided, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC436; 1994(2)Crimes990(SC); JT1994(4)SC209; 1994(2)KLT325(SC); 1994(2)SCALE997; (1994)4SCC299; [1994]Supp1SCR95
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the legality of the order dated 3rd February, 1993 passed by Chettur Sankaran Nair, J. of the Kerala High Court allowing Criminal Revision No. 762 of 1992 filed by the State of Kerala and setting aside the order dated 16th October, 1992 passed by the Special Judge, Idamalayar, in Criminal M.P. No. 79 of 1992 in C.C. 1 of 1991 declining to give consent to the Public Prosecutor to with draw the prosecution against the sixth accused - G. Gopalakrishnan Pillai, former Secretary, Irrigation and Power to the Government of Kerala.2. The material facts may now be briefly stated. Idamalayar Dam as a part of the Idamalayar project was sanctioned by the planning Commission and huge expenditure in its construction was incurred upto March, 1985, However, in the trial run itself on 15.7.1985 a number of leaks were discovered in the tunnel exposing the inferior quality of construction work which was a matter of grave public co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1977)18GLR615
J.B. Mehta, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner-registered trust in the first petition challenges the order of the Tribunal under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, (here in a Her referred to as 'the Act'), dated September 1, 1975, at Annexure C, by which the Tribunal has declared invalid the notice terminating the services of opponent No. 1 teacher and it has further declared that opponent no 1. Teacher continued in service and would be entitled to receive his back wages. Opponent No. 1 was engaged in this school on June 11, 1973, as a probationer. A show cause notice was issued to this teacher on April 4, 1975 at Annex, A, on various grounds mentioned in the said notice. The teacher had submitted his reply on April 9, 1975. The management had proposed termination of the service of this teacher and had sought approval of the D.E.O. under Section 36(1)(b) of the Act as the D.E.O. was the officer authorised in this behalf by the Board. This proposal was received by the D.E.O. on April 16,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1982)1GLR233
P.D. Desai, J.1. Questions of some importance in the field of administrative law arise in this appeal in the context of the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction by a University over a student who is alleged to have misconducted himself at an examination. The question of the ambit of the power of the Court exercising writ jurisdiction to examine the validity of the findings of fact upon which the ultimate decision recorded by a disciplinary authority rests has been the subject-matter of a catena of decisions. One of the rules which is well-established is that to find facts on no evidence is to err in law and that such an error attracts judicial review. What is meant however, by 'no evidence'? Does it mean total dearth of evidence or lack of evidence reasonably capable of supporting the findings? This is principal question which directly falls for consideration herein. The subsidiary question is as to when can the quantum of penalty, which is within the exclusive domain of the disciplin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986WLN(UC)678
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, dated 27-1-1978, whereby the learned lower court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under: (1) Kundan (1) for offence under Sections 147 and 353, 6 months R.I. each; (2) for offence under Section 333, IPC, 3 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo .2 month's R.I.; (2) Dhanna, (1) for offence under Sections 147 and 352, IPC, each of them for 6 Nanda, month's R I. for each offence; Ram Gopal Rameshwar, (2) for offence under Section 333/149, IPC, 2 year's R.I. and a fine of Mishri Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month' R.I.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that on 17th April, 1974 the wine contractor of Shahpura i.e. Shri Lal Chand submitted a report marked Ex. P 2 to the Excise Inspector of Shahpura alleging therein that in village Rajyas certain Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)IILLJ241Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, a senior citizen, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Ref. No. A1/207-BM/96 dated 13.7.96, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant all monetary and other service benefits treating the petitioner as having retired peacefully on reaching the age of superannuation.2. Heard Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. M. Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for M/s. King and Patridge for respondents 1, 2 and 3.3. The petitioner after putting in 33 years of service, claims that he has retired on 31.8.95 from Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company (hereinafter called as HPF for brevity), a Government of India Undertaking. The petitioner was working as Chief Manager in HPF. The management of HPF framed charges on 12.3.94 under Rule 25 (3) of The HPF Officers Conduct Discipline and Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!