Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The State is in appeal against an order of acquittal. The accused persons were charged under Sections 148 IPC, 332/149 IPC, 307/149 IPC, 323/149 IPC and 395/ 397 IPC and the learned sessions judge thought it prudent to sentence each of them to six months rigorous imprisonment and with a varying period from six months to three years of rigorous imprisonment of different counts. In appeal, the High Court, However, passed an order of acquittal. The High Court has been rather categorical in its criticism as regards the inclusion of the names of the accused persons in the FIR, since the evidence on record unmistakably records that the First Information Report was written after the arrival of the police and the names have been recorded as per the list supplied by the inspector incharge.2. The test identification parade also was not in accordance with the law. It is on this basis, however, that the High Court thought it prudent to acquit them. Incidentally, the High Court found and ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(10)SC339
ORDER1. The state is in appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore on the ground of benefit of doubt. 2. Incidentally, the accused was charged for the offences under Sections 448, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned sessions judge was pleased to sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default clause as well. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Subsequently, the matter was taken to the High Court and the High Court recorded the finding, as noticed above, of acquittal on consideration of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The High Court in its order records as below: '14. It is the evidence of PW. 1 that when he received the blow, he was able to see the appellant through the electric light which was burning in the padasala. He has admitted that there was no meter to use the electric light in his house and that a wire connection is taken f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The State is in appeal against the order of acquittal. All the three accused persons charged under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and also under Section 307/ 34 IPC and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, however, acquitted all the three accused persons on the ground of non compatibility of the oral evidence between the witnesses examined in support of the prosecution. The High Court has been rather candid enough to record that, as a matter of fact, the trial court has misread the evidence in its true and proper perspective.2. Incidentally, the factual score depicts that of the three accused persons, two accused persons are already dead and the third one is alive and as such the appeal is maintained against the third accused person namely Ram Nagina Singh.3. Apart from the factual score, their being no perversity in the order of the High Court since the view taken by the High Court cannot but be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(SC)103; JT2002(10)SC246; (2002)10SCC670
ORDER1. These appeals have been preferred from the decision of the Gauhati High Court in which the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati (for short 'the Tribunal') remanding the matter to the assessing officer for the purpose of determining whether the assessees who had, admittedly, fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 35CCA of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') could subsequently become disentitled to said deduction by reason of subsequent events. Section 35CCA provides: '35CCA (1) Where an assessee incurs any expenditure by way of payment of any sum- (a) to an association or institution, which has as its object the undertaking of any programmed of rural development, to be used for carrying out any programme of rural development approved by the prescribed authority; or (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) xxxxx the assessee shall, subject to the provisions, of Sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of the amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002]258ITR529(SC)
ORDERThese appeals have been preferred from the decision of the Gauhati High Court in which the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), remanding the matter back to the assessing officer for the purpose of determining whether the assessees who had, admittedly, fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under section 35CCA of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), could subsequently become disentitled to the said deduction by reason of subsequent events.Section 35CCA provides : '35CCA. (1) Where an assessee incurs any expenditure by way of payment of any sum(a) to an association or institution, which has as its object the undertaking of any programme of rural development, to be used for carrying out any programme of rural development approved by the prescribed authority or .... the assessee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The law seems to be rather well settled as regards interference of this Court in the matter of an order of acquittal, which stands confirmed by the High Court. In the contextual facts, ten accused persons were convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The matter was taken in appeal to the High Court and the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, dealt with the matter extensively upon appropriately finding it rather difficult to maintain the conviction of the most of accused persons and as such acquitted the six accused persons and maintained conviction and sentence of the other four accused persons. It is against the acquittal of these six persons that the matter has been taken before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal has been rather emphatic in his submissions that the scrutiny of the evidence would go to show manifest error committed by the High Court in the matter to order acquittal as regards the other ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC7; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)100; 2003CriLJ65; 2002(84)ECC465; (2003)1GLR557; JT2002(8)SC490; RLW2003(2)SC190; (2002)8SCC327; 2002(2)LC1496(SC)
Banerjee, J.1. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act') categorically records the inadequacy of the existing legislation to combat illicit drug traffic and drug abuse, both at the national and international levels and it is by reason of such deficiencies in the existing laws, the legislature thought it prudent to consolidate the same and bring about a comprehensive legislation so as to meet the exigencies of the situation. A plain (SIC) at the provisions of the Act read with the Statement of Objects and the Preamble would depict the intent of legislature as regards the offences under the said consolidated legislation, which stands expressed in rather explicit language as one of the most heinous ones in nature. This Court, however, in consonance with criminal jurisprudence of the country has been insisting on strict compliance of the safe-guards provided under the Statute so as to be in tu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC38; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)361; 2003(1)ALT4(SC); 2003(1)AWC240(SC); [2002(95)FLR949]; JT2002(8)SC471; (2002)IIILLJ1111SC; (2002)8SCC400; (2003)1UPLBEC302
Banerjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. Generally speaking, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature. It is so exercised in the normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings and gross violation of natural justice, to name a few. It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court below. The finding of fact being within the domain of the inferior Tribunal, except where it is a perverse recording thereof or not based on any material whatsoever resulting in manifest injustice, interference under the Article is no called for:3. The observations above however, find affirmance in the decision of this Court in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu : AIR1963SC1895 . In Nibaran (supra) this Court has been rather categorical in recording that the jurisdiction so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC33; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)378; 2003(1)AWC273(SC); 95(2003)CLT287(SC); [2002(95)FLR954]; JT2002(8)SC477; (2002)IIILLJ1115SC; (2003)1SCC250; 2002(2)LC1535(SC)
D. Raju, J.Civil Appeal No. 7342 of 1993:1. The respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers, have filed Writ Petition in the High Court of Orissa for payment of remuneration on the same scale and basis paid to the regularly employed staff, claiming that they are discharging the same duties and functions, invoking the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. They also sought for regularization of their services on the ground that they have been found working for considerably long period of time to justify their regularization. The appellant-State contested the claim by contending that the duties and responsibilities of the employees in the regular establishment were more onerous than that of the duties of N.M.R. workers, who are employed in various projects on daily basis and that their engagement also depended on the availability of the work in the different projects and consequently, they cannot claim any parity for equal pay. The Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC24; JT2002(8)SC546; (2003)1SCC305
Banerjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. Issuance of warrant for the arrest of the vessel M.V. WON FU berthedat Madras Port has been the principal controversy before the Madras HighCourt in its Admiralty Jurisdiction.3. The plaintiff being the appellant herein instituted a suit for recovery ofdamages of 11 lakhs for breach of contract with interest at the rate of 24%per annum by reason of loss and damages suffered and caused by breach ofcontract by the defendant vessel. The factual element we will refer shortlyhere after but presently be it noted that against the refusal to entertain thesuit and the consequent dismissal of the same before the learned trial judge,the plaintiff moved the appellant forum in the High Court but having failedto obtain the relief the petition for special leave under Article 136 has beenmoved before this Court and this Court at the admission stage itself uponissuance of notice and upon the grant of leave as appears herein before proceeded to deal with the issue without...
Tag this Judgment!