Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1546; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)46; 1998(1)BLJR421; 1998CriLJ1254; 1997(4)Crimes403(SC); JT1997(9)SC717; 1997(7)SCALE517; (1998)9SCC315
Srinivasan, J. 1. The appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 IPC. The case of the prosecution was briefly as follows: On 21-4-1981 at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant went to the shop belonging to the deceased Arjun Sao near his residence and demanded a packet of cigarettes from PW 4, the daughter of the deceased. At that time PW 6, the wife of the deceased, PW 7, the wife of the brother of PW 6, PW 5, the son of the deceased and PW 3, a resident of a nearby house were also present. When the appellant demanded a packet of cigarettes, PW 4 and PW 6 informed him that there was no cigarette in the shop. The appellant used abusive language and made certain derisive remarks. The deceased protested against the same. Immediately the appellant took out a pistol and shot the deceased who fell down and died at the spot. PW 8, the Investigating Officer came to the village at about 2.00 a.m. in connection with investigation of another case on a complaint lodged by the grandfather of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(4)SC332; 1997(5)SCALE494; (1998)9SCC671a
ORDER1. The learned Attorney General of India says that the issues which were agreed to on the last date, i.e., 10.11.1997 are also accepted by the Union of India and that the Union of India does not propose any additional issue. We accordingly frame the following issues:Original Suit No. 1 of 1997:1. Whether the suit is barred by Article 262(2) of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956? (AP)2. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as not disclosing cause of action? (AP)3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as seeking reliefs which are contrary to the Report and Decision of the KWDT?(AP) 4. What is the 'decision' of the KWDT binding on the parties under Section 6 of the Act in relation to:(a) Scheme 'B'(b) Use of surplus water as contemplated in Clause (V)(c) read with Clause XIV(A) of the Award.5. Whether reference to Scheme B in the 1st and the further report of the KWDT, disclose a complete scheme, and whether such scheme is ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(102)ELT521(SC); (1998)2SCC752
1. Mr. M.S. Usgaocar, learned Senior Counsel, is in caveat. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The appellant is substantively aggrieved by the order dated 11-7-1997 of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which order has emphatically been reiterated in the impugned order dated 17-11-1997. By order dated 11-7-1997, the appellant was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on certain dates, requiring him to cooperate with the investigation, at the pain of forfeiting other benefits given to him. To this extent of the order, the appellant is not aggrieved. Besides, when being interrogated under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the appellant has been asked to refresh his memory and not evade questions by taking recourse to the plea of failure of memory, and give replies which must be direct and not evasive. To this part of the order, the appellant has objection and, in our view, validly. The appellant in terms is required to answer the questions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC130; (1998)9SCC57
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant was a candidate for appointment to the post of a Teacher, Grade III (Sanskrit). He has not been selected by the respondents on the ground that the average marks obtained by him in the qualifying examination was less than 52.3% which was the lowest average on the basis of which appointments had been given. It, however, appears that the appellant has passed Praveshika and also Upadhyay examinations being equivalent to Higher Secondary and he has also passed the Shastri examination being equivalent to B. Ed. examination. The Note under Clause (b) of Rule 6 of the relevant rules indicates that for calculating the percentage of the marks in case of more than one examination passed by a candidate, the percentage of the higher marks obtained in the examinations passed by such candidate shall be taken into account. The appellant obtained 36% marks in the Upadhyay examination but in the Praveshika examination he obtai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998ACJ123; 1998(1)BLJR697; [1998]91CompCas306(SC); JT1997(9)SC760; (1998)IMLJ78(SC); (1998)118PLR192; (1998)1SCC371; [1997]Supp6SCR255
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is heard by a Bench of 3 Judges because learned counsel for the appellant, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., had submitted that the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayeb Mohammed and Ors., (1991) 2 ACJ 650, had been misread by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court and that, while the appellant would pay the amount of compensation awarded in this matter, it desired, in view of the general importance of the question, an authoritative pronouncement.3. For the purposes of the appeal, therefore, very few facts are relevant. A bus met with an accident. Its policy of insurance was issued by the appellant on 30th November, 1989. The premium for the policy was paid by cheque. The cheque was dishonoured. A letter stating that it had been dishonoured was sent by the appellant to the insured on 23rd January, 1990. The letter claimed that, as the cheque had not not been encashed, the premium on the policy ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(9)SC696; (1998)2SCC527; [1997]Supp6SCR237; (1998)1UPLBEC62
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. That appellant is aggrieved by the order dated April 27, 1989 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dismissing his writ petition wherein his challenge to the post of Officer on Special Duty (Special Component Plan) which he was holding, failed.2. The appellant joined Secretariat service of the respondent as Lower Division Assistant in the temporary capacity in the year 1975. Whereafter he was promoted as Upper Division Assistant. While the appellant was holding the post of Upper Division Assistant in officiating capacity, he was selected and appointed on ex- cadre post of Officer on Special Duty (Special Component Plan) by order dated October 16, 1980. By Office Memorandum dated May 8, 1984, this post of Officer on Special Duty (Special Component Plan) was sought to be abolished and by notification dated May 14, 1984 Shri Shiva Shankar Singh, respondent No. 4, was appointed as Officer on Special Duty (Special Component Plan) in newly created pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999LC12(SC); 1998(98)ELT13(SC); JT1998(9)SC147; (1998)9SCC519
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Madras High Court dated 7-8-1997 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been finally disposed of while disposing of the miscellaneous petition for interim relief filed in the writ petition. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the earlier part of the order clearly indicates that the High Court was only dealing with the miscellaneous petition for stay and had passed a conditional order of stay subject to the appellant's depositing the amounts specified therein and furnishing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit. In the said order the High Court has also directed that in the event of the writ petition being dismissed the appellant would pay the balance of the amount along with interest @ 18% from the date on which it became due till payment. It has been urged that the said part of the order postulates that the writ petition was to remain pending and would be dealt with later and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC577; JT1997(9)SC676; 1996LabIC581; (1996)ILLJ781SC; 1995(6)SCALE214; (1998)1SCC537; 1998(1)LC165(SC); (1998)1UPLBEC330
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21-2-1994 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh for dismissing their appeal against judgment dated 25-4-1991 of the learned Single Judge of that High Court whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed the court-martial proceedings held against him including the confirmation of sentence passed upon him by the court-martial.2. A General Court-Martial (GCM) under the Army Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') was convened to try the respondent holding the rank of Major in the Army on the following charge:'Charge-Sheet'The accused IC-14827F Major Arshad Hussain, 225 Ground Liaison Section Type 'C' attached to AOC center, an Officer holding a permanent commission in the Regular Army, is charged with:Section 63, Army Act An act prejudicial to good order and military discipline, in that he,at Field, between 17th Sep., 1984 and 17th Nov., 1984, when s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC4386; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)102; 1998CriLJ675; JT1997(9)SC690; (1998)1SCC550; [1997]Supp6SCR246
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Nilgiris Bar Association (Tamil Nadu) is in no mood to reconcile with the easy escape made by an imposter in the legal profession from the penal clutches of law. Without enrollment with any Bar Council and without any academic qualification to practise law he managed to get entry into the legal profession by wangling a membership from the Nilgiris Bar Association, and flourished in his practice as an advocate before all the Courts including Sessions Courts in the district for a long period of eight years. But his hay days did not last longer as the vigilant Bar discovered that he was an interloper in the profession. A complaint was lodged with the police and after investigation a charge-sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. He then adopted a strategy to skip-out of the penal tentacles by pleading guilty to the charge and praying for mercy of the Court. The strategy worked as the magistrate released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(4)SC466; (1998)3SCC604
ORDER1. In the FIR registered against the petitioner on 28-7-1986 for an offence under Section 309 IPC, what is alleged is that the writ petitioner had undertaken a 'fast unto death'. The challenge to the registration of the FIR in the writ petition was primarily on the ground that Section 309 IPC, i.e., attempt to commit suicide, is ultra vires the Constitution. This issue is no longer res integra. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, : 1996CriLJ1660 (batch of cases) has categorically ruled that Section 309 IPC is not constitutionally invalid. The Bench has held that Article 21 of the Constitution does not include therein the 'right to die'. In this view of the matter, keeping in view the allegations made in the first information report, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!