Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1686; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)727; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)342; 1998CriLJ2251; 1998(2)Crimes92(SC); (1998)3GLR2347; JT1998(3)SC60; 1998(2)SCALE633; (1998)4SCC351; [1998]2SCR664
Thomas, J.1. A Public Prosecutor moved in the trial court for permission to use a confessional statement recorded from an accused during investigation of another crime, but the trial judge disallowed the motion on the premise that unless the confession was recorded during the investigation of the very offence under trial it cannot be used in evidence of that case. The order thus passed by the trial court (A Designated Court under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987, (TADAA as acronym) is now being challenged by the State of Gujarat by special leave.2. It is not necessary to set out facts of the case which is now pending before the Designated Court. Nonetheless, some skeletal facts necessary for disposal of these appeals have to be stated: The three respondents in these appeals were accused in some cases registered by different police stations of Gujarat State following certain instances of bomb blasts at different places. Investigation revealed that those instance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2863; (1998)8SCC346
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against judgment dated 9-4-1997 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). The impugned order of the High Court was passed in writ petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh aggrieved by the order dated 7-8-1985 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow by which the claim petition filed by the respondent Ajit Singh was allowed and the order of punishment dated 9-2-1982, passed by the Director of Agriculture against him was quashed. The High Court held that the Tribunal was wrong in quashing the order of punishment dated 9-2-1982. However, it held that the respondent was entitled to full salary for whole of the period for which he was treated to be under suspension, i.e., from 14-9-1962 to 31-10-1975. The High Court maintained the order of recovery of Rs 9928 passed by the disciplinary authority.3. The respondent was an SAS Group III service officer in the Agricultural Department of the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1862; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)735; 1998(2)BLJR1298; 1998CriLJ2520; 1998(2)Crimes99(SC); JT1998(3)SC18; 1998(2)SCALE629; (1998)4SCC298; [1998]2SCR658
Thomas, J.1. The place of occurrence of this double murder case is within the vicinity of the Sessions Court of Allahabad. Victims of the murder were inter se brothers-in-law and the alleged murderers were also like that. One of the victims was facing trial in another murder case at the same Sessions Court and with his murder the said trial stood abated in that case. But the trial in the present case passed through all the stages and the sessions court convicted the two accused of murder and death penalty was imposed on them. The High Court of Allahabad on appeal acquitted them both. So the State of U.F. has come up with this appeal by special leave.2. Murder for murder was the motivation for the occurrence as per the prosecution case. Synopsisi of this case is that a man named Pappu (who was the brother of first accused Sikandar Ali) was slain about a year prior to the incident in this case, and police had challenged Shamsher Singh allies Niley (one of the deceased) as an accused in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1480; 1999CriLJ598; JT1998(6)SC414; RLW1999(1)SC125; (1998)5SCC694
ORDER1. The accused-appellant faces a charge of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of the Magistrate concerned. The respondents, who are complainants, the former being an advocate, accused him of the offence because he backed out from an agreement for sale of certain property situated in the town of Patna. It is alleged that an agreement was signed between the complainant-respondents and the appellant whereby some land was agreed to be sold by the appellant to the complainants on a consideration and allegedly, a part thereof was paid as earnest money, the balance being payable in the manner indicated in the Deed. The most important term in the Deed was that possession of the plot would stand transferred to the complainants and possession in fact was delivered to the complainants over which they have made certain constructions. The complaint was laid on the basis that the appellant had cheated the complainants of the sum of money they had paid as earnes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1535; 1998(2)ARBLR314(SC); 1998(3)CTC233; JT1998(6)SC643; (1998)5SCC599
ORDER1. In these matters, two common decisions rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in four arbitration proceedings have been brought on the anvil of scrutiny. 2. Before dealing with the merits of these proceedings, one point which, in our view, requires to be decided at the threshold is to the effect whether the present arbitration proceedings are governed by the earlier Arbitration Act, 1940 or by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the new Act'). For resolving this question, a few relevant facts will have to be mentioned at the outset. In SLPs (C) Nos. 1238-39 of 1997, according to the petitioner, the dispute was sought to be referred to arbitration by lodging a claim in that connection by the petitioner-contractor with the respondent-authorities on 6-3-1995 pursuant to the earlier demand dated 20-11-1994. A further letter in support of the earlier demand dated 6-3-1995 was also submitted on 29-5-1995 and thereafter an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(5)SC627; 1998(1)SCALE741; (1998)5SCC447
ORDER1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, before whom the appellants had claimed seniority over Respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the cadre of Statistical Assistant under the Census Organisation. In the Census Organisation, the hierarchy of posts starts from Assistant Compiler and then Computer, Statistical Assistant, Tabulation Officer and then Investigator. The appellants joined the organisation as Assistant Compilers in May-June 1970; whereas Respondents 5, 6 and 7 were also appointed as Assistant Compilers on 2-6-1970 and Respondent 8 had been appointed on 22-7-1970. There were no recruitment rules then in force, and persons were promoted on ad hoc basis to the posts of Computers and then also to Statistical Assistants. The recruitment rules came into force in the year 1973. After the recruitment rules came into force, the Government took the task of considering the cases of all ad hoc promotees in different ranks by con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2856; [1999(81)FLR85]; JT1999(8)SC226; (1998)6SCC597
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 4801 of 1989. The appellant approached the High Court for quashing Rules 5(3) and 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Geology and Mining Service Rules, 1983 (for short 'the Rules') and for issuance of a mandamus commanding the opposite party to prepare a combined seniority list of officers belonging to Class I service on the posts of Geologist and Senior Geo-Chemist (Geology) and then to consider the question of promotion to the post of Deputy Director as provided in Rule 16 of the Rules. So far as the validity of the Rules is concerned, as it appears the appellant did not challenge the same in the High Court. But even otherwise on examining the provisions of the Rules, we see no infirmity therein to be struck down. The High Court then considered the question of eligibility for being promoted to the post of Deputy Director and then came to the conclusion that there is no subst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IIIAD(SC)697; AIR1998SC1736; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)107; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)358; 1998CriLJ2274; JT1998(3)SC162; 1998(2)SCALE682; (1998)4SCC492
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Nanavati, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Designated Court. Assam in TADA Sessions Case No. 126/93 on his pleading guilty to the charge that on 22.10.91 in the notified area, he was found in possession of two guns and two cartridges which were intended to be used for carrying on terrorist and disruptive activities.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction on the ground that the Designated Court wrongly construed the statement of the appellant as an admission of guilt.3. The charge framed against the appellant was 'That you on or about 22.10.91 kept concealed DBBL gun No. 7083 and 42250 with 12 Bore two cartridges (red in colour) without licence or authority for using the same in terrorist and disruptive activities and there by committed an offence U/s. 5 of TADA (P) Act.' After framing the charge, the question that was put to the appellant was that' on 22.10.91 Police/Military recovered from your Engar Khowa house SBBL ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2383; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)931; 1998CriLJ3604; JT1998(3)SC46; 1998(2)SCALE657
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Nanavati, J.-1. The State has filed this appeal against acquittal of the respondent by the High Court. He was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Chand Ram.2. We have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. We find that the High Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of eye-witness - Sneh Lata - PW 3 and for good reasons rejected it. The High Court has pointed out number of infirmities appearing in her evidence. In view of the said infirmities, her evidence could not have been accepted and could not have formed the basis for the conviction of the respondents.3. As we find that the High Court has rightly acquitted the respondent, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IIIAD(SC)683; AIR1998SC1759; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)866; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)66; 1998CriLJ2279; 1998(2)Crimes261(SC); JT1998(3)SC167; 1998(2)SCALE684
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 242 DB/88. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 148 and Sections 324, 325 and 302 I.P.C. all read with Section 149 I.P.C. recorded by the Sessions Court, Ambala in Sessions Case No. 22/87.2. The appellants on the one hand and the two deceased - Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh - on the other hand were distant collaterals and they had 'baras' situated side by side on the outskirts of their village. Near the common boundary of two 'baras', there was a 'kicker' tree and a dispute was going on between them since long as regards ownership of that tree. On June 5, 1987, at about 6.00 p.m., appellant No. 5 Swaran Kaur was seen by Bachittar Singh and Bachan singh standing near that kicker tree. They also saw Avtar Singh - appellant No. 4 cutting branches of that tree. So, Bachittar Singh and Bachan Singh went to that 'bara' and protested ...
Tag this Judgment!