Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC664; 1992CriLJ609; 1991(3)Crimes825(SC); JT1991(4)SC473; 1991(2)SCALE1206; (1992)1SCC318; 1992(1)LC254(SC)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The appellant along with two others was tried and convicted under Section 307/ 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The other two were acquitted by the High Court.2. The incident took place at 10.00 p.m. on 4th December, 1973. Enemity between appellant and complainant is found established. Prosecution relied on evidence of the injured, his father and a family friend Budh Sing examined as P.W. 4. The trial judge did not attach much weight to the evidence of Bharat Singh, P.W. 3, father of the injured. The conviction was, mainly, based on testimony of Budh Singh, P.W. 4. The High Court while appreciating the evidence of Budh Singh observed that in cross-examination he admitted that the complainant did not disclose any name, immediately. He even could not disclose whether they were known persons or outsiders. But later on he gave out the name of the accused.3. The learned Counsel for appellant has asssailed the finding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC563; 1992CriLJ522; 1993Supp(1)SCC221
1. Damodaran, the respondent before us, was convicted by the Special Judge under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161, I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/-. On appeal, the High Court did not find fault with the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and agreed with the reasoning and conclusions reached by the Special Judge. The High Court, however, entertained an additional point regarding the validity of the sanction granted by the appointing authority to prosecute the respondent and came to the conclusion that there was no application of mind by the said authority and on that ground acquitted the respondent. The High Court reasoning is reproduced as under :In order to satisfy myself with respect to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I sent for the records. A perusal of the letter dated 25-4-90 written by the Director of Vigilance and A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC597; 1992CriLJ523; 1991(3)Crimes809(SC); JT1991(4)SC463; 1991(2)SCALE1203; 1992Supp(1)SCC431
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The only short question in this appeal is, if the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial judge and convicting the appellants under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC as they had exceeded their right of private defence.2. Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court found that the occurrence dated 25th June, 1972, in which two persons died, took place in a field which belonged to the appellants. It has further been found that the complainant in a civil suit filed in 1971 had obtained an injunction against the appellants which had been vacated on June 1972. Despite this the complainant party in disregard of the order passed by the competent court went on the field and sowed maize on the date of occurrence. Thereafter on coming to know that the accused had gone on the field the complainant party reached there armed with weapons which resulted in the incident. The trial judge further found that the appellants had both the righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC598; 1992CriLJ525; 1991(3)Crimes826(SC); JT1991(5)SC298; 1991(2)SCALE1197; 1992Supp(1)SCC426
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.2. The Trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution story as the shot by which the deceased died having admittedly been fired from 50 feet, there could not have any blackish margins of the injuries.It was held that the incident having taken place sometime in the early morning the lodging of FIR at 1.00 p.m. when the distance of police station was only 100 feet, created as impression that it was a manufactured document. Presence of Sulakhan Singh and Arjan Singh, the two eye witnesses was also ruled out as the wad was recovered from a distance of 46 feet whereas the shot must have been fired from 6 feet. The High Court on the other hand relying on text book held that blackish margin of the injuries could be either due to grease of the bullet or from traces of gun powder.3. We have heard the couns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC602; 1992CriLJ526; JT1991(6)SC511; 1991(2)SCALE1198; (1992)1SCC280; 1992(1)LC253(SC)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 304, Indian Penal Code by the trial judge and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The trial judge held that while one Phulia and her two daughters i.e. the appellant and one another were weeding their crop when deceased Ganga Ram happen to pass through the neighbouring field. According to prosecution on seeing him Nabia (appellant) abused him whereupon the deceased came protesting and grappled with the three. During the course of altercation the appellant snatched the knife from the hand of deceased and gave him a number of blows which resulted in his death. The doctor who examined the injuries of the deceased also examined the appellant and found that she had incised wound over her right forearm and two superficial cuts on her chin and Medial aspect of the middle phalanx of the middle finger. The mother had one incised wound on right hand and two contusions. Even the other sister had two superficia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC644; 1992CriLJ608; JT1991(4)SC474; 1991(2)SCALE1204; (1992)1SCC304; 1992(1)LC251(SC)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The appellant was Head Master of a Government High School. He was tried for accepting an illegal gratification from a teacher of the same school for showing favour in signing a bill relating to the arrears of his salary. The Special Judge after considering the evidence led on behalf of prosecution held the appellant to be guilty for offence under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under both the counts which were to run concurrently. A fine of Rs. 500/- was also imposed on him. In appeal the substantive sentence of imprisonment on both the counts was reduced to one year R.I. which were to run concurrently. The fine was maintained.; 2. The High Court found that the witnesses who were associated in the conduct of the raid for recovery of tainted money from the appellant could not be termed as independent who could be associated with such raids. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992LC435(SC); 1993(64)ELT4(SC); JT1992(3)SC493; 1992(1)SCALE32; 1993Supp(3)SCC487
ORDERK.N. Singh, CJI and N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Bombay dated 12th June, 1990.3. The brief facts giving arise to these appeals are that the appellant No. 2 is its Managing Director. Appellants acquired additional licences for making imports and in September, 1982 they imported two consignments of 'individual coconut oil' The Collector of Customs by orders dated 17th December and 20th December, 1982 confiscated the goods on the ground that the import of industrial coconut oil' was a canalised item, but he gave an option to the appellant to redeem the goods by paying a sum of Rs. 2 crores in one consignment and Rs. 3 crores in another consignment as redemption fine. The appellants challenged the orders of the Collectors of Custom by filing two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. A full Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the 'In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC665; 1992CriLJ490; 1991(3)Crimes798(SC); JT1991(4)SC472; 1991(2)SCALE1205; 1992Supp(1)SCC428; 1992(1)LC252(SC)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The appellant was Head Master of a Government High School. He was tried for accepting an illegal gratification from a teacher of the same school for showing favour in signing a bill relating to the arrears of his salary. The Special Judge after considering the evidence led on behalf of prosecution held the appellant to be guilty for offence under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under both the counts which were to run concurrently. A fine of Rs. 500/- was also imposed on him. In appeal the substantive sentence of imprisonment on both the counts was reduced to one year R.I. which were to run concurrently. The fine was maintained.; 2. The High Court found that the witnesses who were associated in the conduct of the raid for recovery of tainted money from the appellant could not be termed as independent who could be associated with such raids. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC756; 1992Supp(2)SCC304
1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 20 February, 1981 made in Second Appeal No. 2015 of 1977 arising out of suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of property measuring 3.06 acres.2. The appellant instituted the suit for declaration of title after purchasing the property from Ramaswamy under the sale deed Ex. A-1 dated 29 November, 1971. It is necessary to trace how Ramaswamy got the suit property. One Manthi alias Thambiran Padayachi had three sons one of whom was called Chinnathambi. The admitted wife of Chinnathambi was called Pavayee, who is referred hereafter as Pavayee No. 1 Chin nathambi was living with another woman having the same name who is hereinafter referred to as Pavayee No. 2. Two sons and one daughter were born to Chinnathambi with Pavayee No. 2. Ramaswamy is one of the sons. Manthi executed a will Ex. B-1 dated 17 March, 1930 bequeathing his properties to his children and randchildren.Cninnathambi filed a suit against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC521; JT1991(6)SC543; 1991(2)SCALE1170; (1992)1SCC204; [1991]Supp3SCR27; 1992(1)LC191(SC)
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The respondent bank instituted a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Panipat, for recovery of Rs. 81,137.39 against the appellants herein. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit allowing contractual rate of interest at 10-1/2 per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The appeal against the decree was dismissed by modifying the interest payable as follows :That the future interest payable on the amount in suit is reduced to 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.2. The High Court in second appeal did not agree with the modification made by the District Judge and it restored the rate of interest allowed by the Sub-Judge.3. The award of interest from the date of suit till the date of payment is regulated by Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 34 before the 1977 amendment provided that the court may award interest as it deems reasonable on the principal sum adjudged from the date of suit to the date of the decree and ...
Tag this Judgment!