Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1536; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)363; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)224; 1998CriLJ1253; JT1998(1)SC41; 1998(1)SCALE9
ORDERJudgment pronounced by Nanavati, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal Nos. 334/86, 341/86 and 425/86. Criminal Appeal No. 634/89 is filed by the State of Karnataka against 13 respondents originally accused Nos. 1 and 5 to 16 and who had filed a separate appeal in the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 635/89 is filed against 3 respondents, original accused Nos. 2 to 4 and who had also filed a separate appeal before the High Court.2. The prosecution case was that P.W. 4 had a share in the land bearing No. 180/1 and that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were obstructing him in cultivation of the said land. P.W. 4 had, therefore, on the day prior to the day of incident file an application before the police complaining against accused Nos. 1 to 4. On 4.10.1984 between 12.30p.m. and 1.45p.m. all the 16 accused armed with deadly weapons went to the said field to take possession of the land. In the field Rudragowda, Siddagowda, Balasah...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC674; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)209; 1998(2)ALLMR(SC)200; 1998CriLJ869; 1997(4)Crimes395(SC); JT1997(10)SC92; 1997(7)SCALE562; (1998)9SCC3
Pattanaik, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same sessions trial being Sessions Trial No. 332 of 1973 in the Court of Vth Additional and District Judge, Varanasi. The appellants are the members of Pradeshik Armed Constabulary belonging to the 5th Battalion and their Headquarters was at Ramnagar. An unfortunate and unsavoury incident occurred on account of the decision of the State Government that the Army should take over charge of the armoury and magazines of the Provincial Pradeshik Armed Constabulary throughout Uttar Pradesh. It is on account of the aforesaid direction the forces belonging to the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary revolted and resisted the Army personnel from taking charge of the armoury and in furtherance of which 12 persons belonging to the Army were killed and 32 were injured. On account of the firing from the Army 4 persons belonging to the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary were killed and some were injured. Ultimately, however, the direction of the State was impleme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)9SCC58
Kirpal, J.1.The only question involved in the connected appeals relates to the seniority of the appellants, vis-a-vis, Respondents 6 to 11. The appellants and the said respondents were working as UDC/Stenographers with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi.2. The next higher post to which these persons could have been promoted to was that of Junior Progress Officers in the said Department. For recruitment to the said post statutory rules under proviso to Article 309 had been formulated in the year 1963. These Rules were amended on 14-7-1976 and as a result thereof the post of Junior Progress Officer was shown to be a selection post which was to be filled after a written competitive examination.3. On 22-1-1980, a circular was issued inviting applications for preparation of panel of candidates for appointment as Junior Progress Officers on ad hoc basis. In this circular it was stated that the Department had taken steps to amend the existing Recruitment Rules so that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1458; 1998(61)ECC225; 1998(97)ELT14(SC); JT1997(9)SC707; (1998)1SCC492; [1997]Supp6SCR359
M. Srinivasan, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Customs Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Civil appeal Nos. 3030-31 of 1989 are by the assessee while the other appeals arc by the Revenue. Two questions arise for consideration. One of them has already been concluded by the judgment of this Court Government of India and Others v. Madras Rubber Factory and Others, : 1995(77)ELT433(SC) . In that case it has been held that for the purpose of levying duty under the provisions of the Act the value of the packing materials should also be included to arrive at the assessable value of the excisable goods. The Tribunal has directed the exclusion of the value of packing materials and thus the Revenue is aggrieved. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the appeals of the Revenue are hereby allowed to that extent.2. The other question which arises for consideration relates to the method of arriving at the value of chewing tobacco per kilogram und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)2SCC446
ORDER1. In this appeal the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Union of India have brought in challenge the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1129 of 1980. It has been held by the learned Judge that the respondent-Chemical Company had established a new concern at Roha in Kolaba District of Maharashtra State on 9-7-1977. The said new concern which was to manufacture organic chemicals had nothing to do with the existing factory of Respondent 1-Company at Ambarnath in Thane District which was being run since 1921. The contention of Respondent 1 is to the effect that Roha factory was an infant industry which was entitled to earn exemption from the operation of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per Section 16(l)(b) of the Act the claim for exemption was for three years from the date of its establishment in 1977. Though initially the exem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2211; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)639; JT1998(1)SC9; 1998(1)SCALE11; 1998(1)LC383(SC)
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Nanavati, J.1. The appellant was tried for committing murder of one Ashok on 12.4.1986 at 6.30 a.m. The Trial Court believed the prosecution witnesses and held that in all 10 injuries were caused by the accused with a knife and that three or four injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. It, however, held that as the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had any motive to cause death of Ashok, it would not be proper to convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC. So it convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC.2. The appellant challenged his conviction by filing an appeal to the High Court. The State also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The appellant has, therefore, filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998CriLJ838; JT1997(9)SC721; (1998)1SCC349; [1997]Supp6SCR317; 1998(1)LC245(SC); (1998)1UPLBEC56
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court holding that Government Advocates and Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be allowed to appear and defend government officials against whom notices for contempt of court are issued. In the Allahabad High Court advocates for the State appearing in criminal matters are designated as Government Advocates while advocates on behalf of the State appearing in civil matters are designated as Standing Counsel. The High Court has held that neither category of advocates can appear in contempt proceedings on behalf of an alleged contemner who is an official of the State Government. The Allahabad High Court has further held that no monetary help from the State Exchequer can be extended to such government officials towards litigation expenses in contempt proceedings. These expenses are to be incurred personally by the government officials concerned which can be subsequently reimb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC735; 86(1998)CLT83(SC); JT1997(10)SC123; 1997(7)SCALE502; (1998)2SCC268; [1997]Supp6SCR299; [1998]109STC193(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 4056/1995 dated 14.05.1996 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. The appellants are aggrieved by the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1959 of the State of Orissa which came into force from 1.12.1989 insofar as it restricted the benefit of deferment/exemption of sales-tax to industries which had gone into commercial production after 1.4.1986 and denied such benefit to those which had gone into production before 1.4.1986. The industrial policy of 1989 in this behalf was notified by the Orissa Government under S.R.O. No. 790/90 (Finance) dated 16.8.1990 issued under Section 7 of the Orissa Sales tax Act w.e.f. 1.12.1989 to which we shall refer in detail later, we are concerned with medium and Large - Scale Industrial units.3. The appellant-Company was incorporated on 9.4.1979 for manufacture of Sponge Iron in the District of Kedhanar in the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1490; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)217; 1998CriLJ845; JT1997(10)SC103; (1998)9SCC11
Nanavati, J.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the judgment of the High Court, we find that the view taken by the High Court is quite reasonable and, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court.2. The trial court believed the evidence regarding presence of accused Kuldip Singh and his participation in the assault on the deceased. The High Court on the other hand has not believed his presence at the time of the incident. This is a finding of fact and we have now to proceed on that basis. Once it is accepted that he was not present, obviously he could not have taken any part in the assault on the deceased and, therefore, the question of exceeding the right of private defence cannot arise. For this reason, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(1)ALD(Cri)431; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)152; 1998(1)BLJR429; 1998CriLJ679; JT1997(9)SC727; (1998)9SCC49
Nanavati, J.1. These appeals by special leave are filed by the State of Bihar against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 493 of 1980 and 20 and 49 of 1981. The High Court allowed the three appeals, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1979/15 of 1980 and acquitted the accused of all the charges leveled against them.2. The incident which led to the trial of the three respondents took place in Village Bairgania on 9-2-1979 at about 8.30 p.m. There is a powerhouse at Bairgania. It was lying closed since a long time and in order to see that it started again, the people of Bairgania had organised a relay fast near the Rest House of that powerhouse since 28-1-1979. The relay fast was to continue for 24 hours everyday and on 9-2-1979 it was the turn of Bishwanath Prasad Rajgaria (deceased), Bigu Ram, Ram Narayan Prasad, Ram Gopal Rajgaria and Jagannath Prasad ...
Tag this Judgment!