Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)57; AIR2001SC3973; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)275; 2001CriLJ4675; 2001(6)SCALE530; (2001)9SCC488
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Appellant Addha, son of Rooplal, was tried by the First Additional Court of Sessions, Mandla [Madhya Pradesh], along with four others, or the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The Sessions Court held that there was no unlawful assembly as alleged by the prosecution and the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 for having caused the death of one Sher Singh. Two other accused, namely, Rooplal and Buddhulal were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The conviction and sentence of the accused were confirmed by the High Court.2. The incident in question took place on 19.7.1986 at about 9.00 PM. PW-1 Jugal Kishore, along with PW-3 Mishridas, was returning from the nearby flourmill and they saw accused Buddhulal in a wordy altercation with PW-4, Pancham. Jugal Kishore intervened and tried to dissuade them from quarrelling. At that time, Buddhulal's father Rooplal came there and took ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)156; 2001CriLJ4699; JT2001(8)SC198; 2001(6)SCALE567; (2001)9SCC468
ORDERShivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Heard the petitioner, party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents.2. The husband of the petitioner (since deceased) filed a complaint under Sections 506/452/323/34 read with Section 120-B IPC against the respondents 1-4. It is not necessary to set out the details of the complaint as the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order has set out the facts of the case in detail. After the preliminary statements were recorded, the respondents were summoned and after recording pre-charge evidence, the learned Magistrate discharged the respondents finding no justification to proceed with the case. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, filed criminal revision No.88/99 in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the petitioner, party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents and having considered the material brought on record, both documentary and ora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)1; AIR2001SC3958; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)787; 2001(4)ALLMR(SC)829; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)327; 2002(50)BLJR745; 2001CriLJ4660; II(2001)DMC714SC; (2002)1GLR531; JT2001(8)SC218
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] is in challenge before us in these cases.2. The facts in Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs . Shah Bano Begum & Ors. : 1985CriLJ875 , are as follows.3. The husband appealed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing him to pay to his divorced wife Rs. 179/- per month, enhancing the paltry sum of Rs. 25 per month originally granted by the Magistrate. The parties had been married for 43 years before the ill and elderly wife had been thrown out of her husband's residence. For about two years the husband paid maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. When these payment ceased she petitioned under Section 125 CrPC. The husband immediately dissolved the marriage by pronouncing a triple talaq. He paid Rs.3000/- as deferred mahr and a further sum to cover arrears of maintenance and maintenance for the iddat period and he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)61; AIR2001SC3955; 2001ALLMR(Cri)2154(SC); 2001CriLJ4656; JT2001(8)SC189; 2001(6)SCALE532; (2001)8SCC578; 2002(1)LC229(SC)
Thomas, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The evidence of a policeman was tendered in a criminal trial by means of an affidavit but it was not accepted by the High Court and consequently the entire prosecution case was thrown over board. The conviction and sentence passed on an accused were resultantly quashed on that ground alone. The State of Punjab challenges the said verdict of the High Court in this appeal by special leave. 3. The respondent was charge-sheeted by the police for the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Ludhiana. The substance of the allegation against him was that he was found in possession of 4.5 kg. Of opium wrapped in glazed papers on 11.10.1984. The police version was this; while some of the police personnel were returning after patrol duty they came across the respondent near the railway crossing at Kanod village (Sanhewal in Ludhiana district). On seeing the police he tried to run away fro the scene and then the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC251
M.B. Shah and; Ashok Bhan, JJ.Leave granted.This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12-9-2000 passed by the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1991. On 26-3-2001, when the matter came up for admission hearing, after considering the finding of fact against Accused 3, namely, Rajendran, son of Ramasamy Gounder, his petition was rejected. Further, in this appeal the only question which requires consideration is - whether the Appellant (Original Accused 2) could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.It is the prosecution version that four accused faced trial on the allegation that on 19-9-1989 in the morning Accused 1 had tied his cow in the lands allotted to the deceased Chinnasamy. Accused 1 and the deceased were brothers. The deceased immediately made a complaint to his mother. On the previous day of the occurrence also the accused went for tying the cow in the land of the deceased. It is alleged that wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)67; AIR2001SC3976; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)719; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)320; 2001CriLJ4677; JT2001(8)SC200; 2001(6)SCALE556; (2001)9SCC632
Sethi, J.1. The appellants along with seven others were charged for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 307 147 148 rad with Sections 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murders of Mulaim Singh, Munshi Singh, Itwari and Ram Murti. One of the accused persons, namely, Pothi died during the pendency of the trial. All the accused persons, facing the trial, were acquitted by the trial court. In the appeal filed by the respondent-State, the High Court convicted nine accused persons for various offences and sentenced them to imprisonments which ranged upto the imprisonment for life. Two of the accused persons, namely Brijpal Singh (A10) and Beer Sahai (A1) were acquitted. Out of the 9 convicted persons the appellants who were arrayed as accused Nos.2,3,4,5 and 6 in the trial court have preferred this appeal. The Accused Nos.A7, A-8 and A-9 did not file any appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentences and are reported to have died.2.The p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3795; JT2001(8)SC296; 2001(6)SCALE500; (2001)9SCC550; [2001]124STC586(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J.C.A. No. 6840/2001 [@ SLP (C) No. (C) No. 10542/1988], C.A. No. 6841/2001 (@ SLP No. 1193/1998), C.A. No. 6842/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 4762/1998), C.A. Nos. 6843, 44/2001 (@ SLP (c) No. 12767-12768/1998), C.A. No. 6845/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 12770/1998), C.A. No. 6846/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 928/2001, C.A. No. 6847/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 1482/2000), C.A. No. 6848/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7128/2001, C.A. No. 6849/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7120/2001), C.A. No. 6850/2001 (@) SLP (C) No. 7122/2001, C.A. No. 6851/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7123/2000), C.A. No. 6852/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7117/2000), C.A. No. 6853/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7125/2000), C.A. No. 6854/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7126/2000), C.A. No. 6855/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7119/2000), C.A. No. 6856/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7121/2000), C.A. No. 6857/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7124/2000), C.A. No. 6858/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 16857/1999), C.A. No. 6859/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 19344/1999), C.A. No. 6860/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7127/2000), C.A. No. 6861/2001 (@ SLP (C) No. 7026/2000), ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)173CTR(SC)475; [2002]254ITR98(SC); (2002)10SCC393
Y.K. Sabharwal and; Brijesh Kumar, JJ.1. The questions that were referred to the High Court by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were these:“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of CIT (A) directing the Income Tax Officer to allow investment allowance on the ground that the mere fact that the machinery has not been used by the assessee for undertaking any manufacturing of its own could not be any ground for denying investment allowance to the assessee?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of CIT (A) directing the ITO to allow extra shift allowance on the ground that it did not matter whether the assessee had used the machinery in double shift in one of its own concerns or whether it was the lessee who had used the machinery in double shift in his own concern?”The questions h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2836; [2001(91)FLR599]; JT2001(8)SC171; 2001(6)SCALE522; (2001)8SCC378; 2001(4)SCT820(SC); 2002(1)SLJ121(SC)
V.N. Khare, J.1. Leave granted.2. There is an organisation known as Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the 'Samiti'). The Samiti is running a Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution') in the town of Belgaum, Karanataka. The institution is imparting education upto higher secondary level. The institution is a private government aided school, recognised by the Government of Karnataka. The method of appointment and condition of services of the teachers and employees working in the institutions are governed by the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder known as the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In the year 1984, a post of Assistant Teacher in the institution fell vacant. The Management of the institution advertised the said vacancy and invited ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2828; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)277; 2001CriLJ4625; II(2001)DMC734SC; JT2001(8)SC208; 2001(6)SCALE513; (2001)8SCC633
Thomas, J. 1. A young mother of two kinds, who is a double graduate, ran into the rail in front of a running train to end her life as well s her miseries once and for all. She was driven to that action on account of the cruel treatments suffered by her at her locomotive which she desired to be her destroyer, instead of snuffing her life out in a trice, converted her into a veritable vegetable. She lost her left hand from shoulder joint and got her spinal cord ruptured. She turned into a paraplegic. She herself described her present plight as 'a living corpse'. Thus the miseries she longed to end transformed into a monstrous dimension clutching her as long as she is alive.2. Her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law (the appellants before us) were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 116 read with Section 306 IPC, besides Section 498A. On the first count they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and on the second c...
Tag this Judgment!