Court : Uttaranchal
prafulla c. pant, j.1. this appeal, preferred under section 374 of code of criminal procedure, 1973, (for short cr.p.c.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.03.1986 passed by special judge/additional sessions judge, anti corruption dehradun in c.b.i case no 11 of 1983, whereby appellant s.s. bedi and two others were convicted under section 409, 120b, 471 and 461 of indian penal code 1860 (for short i.p.c) and one punishable under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of prevention of corruption act 1947. the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay fine of rs. 10,000/- under section 409 of i.p.c, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on under section 471 read with section 465 of i.p.c., rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of rs. 3,000/- under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) prevention of corruption act 1947. the two other accused namely m.s. rana and dhrampal were also convicted by the same judgment. the two filed separate appeals i.e., criminal appeal no 168 of 2001 (old no. 868 of 1986) by accused dhrampal and criminal appeal no. 174 of 2001 (old no. 961 of 1986) by accused m.s. rana. earlier the said two appeals along with the present criminal appeal no . 2099 of 2001 (old no. 896 of 1986) were decided by this court vide its order dated 25.03.2008. it appears that only the present appellant s.s. bedi challenged the order before the apex court and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
b.c. kandpal, j.1. both the above appeals, arise out against the same judgment and order dated 26-8-2006, passed by additional district and sessions judge/f.t.c., kashipur, district udham singh nagar, in s.t. no. 293/2002, state v. deepak and three ors. therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. by the impugned judgment the learned additional sessions judge has held guilty all the accused/appellants deepak, bablu, anandi and rajendra @ raju under sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 and 354/34 i.p.c. all of them were sentenced to life imprisonment under sections 302/34 and 307/34 i.p.c. and a fine of rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo r.i. for one month. they were further sentenced to undergo two years r.i. under section 324/34 i.p.c. and two years r.i. under section 354/34 i.p.c. however, the sentences were to run concurrently.2. brief facts of the prosecution are that complainant sandeep kaur lodged written report, ext. ka.1, at p.s. jaspur, at 8.10 a.m. on 10.5.2002, with the allegations that in the night of 9/10 june, 2002, she was sleeping in her room and her father jeet singh, brother hardeep singh, sister-in-law jitender kaur and sandeep singh, son of her maternal uncle were sleeping in the court-yard. in the mid night at about 12.00 she heard the shrieks of her sister-in-law and she came out of her room and saw that deepak, bablu sons of anandi and raju son of rampal along with others with iron-handles gave vital blows on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
sudhanshu dhulia, j.1. the present income tax appeal has been filed by the revenue under section 260a of the income-tax act, 1961 (from hereinafter referred to as the 'act') with a substantial question of law formulated as follows:whether the hon'ble itat, new delhi has erred in law in holding that action under section 148 cannot be taken on the basis of dvo's report, as the ratio of judgment of the hon'ble madras high courts in the case of cit v. rajendran reported in : 288 itr 312 (mad) does not apply to the facts of the case?2. the brief facts of the case are as follows:the assessee, namely, m/s sachin hotels (p) ltd. started construction of a hotel somewhere in july 1997 i.e. in the financial year 1997-98, relevant to the assessing year 1998-99. the hotel which was being built opposite the railway station at haridwar, was completed in september, 2001. the company filed its return for the financial year 2001-02 only. it had maintained books of accounts since its inception and the cost of construction was declared each financial year-wise.3. for the assessment year 2001-2002, the assessing officer in order to find the actual investment made by the assessee company, referred the matter to the district valuation officer (from hereinafter referred to as the 'dvo'), delhi on 13.6.2002 under section 131(1)(d) of the act read with section 142a of the act. since there was a substantial difference in the value of construction declared by the assessee in its books of account and the .....
Tag this Judgment!