Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC708; 2003CriLJ872; (2002)10SCC518
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The respondent was charged for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') for committing murder of Dhobi Devi and Madhu Devi and attempting to commit the murder of Pawan Kumar (PW 4), causing him grievous injuries and for committing theft of ornaments belonging to Dhobi Devi and her daughter-in-law Kanta Devi from the house of Majnu Ram.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10th February, 1992, the respondent came to the house of Dhobi Devi in the evening and took his meals in the company of Dhobi Devi, Madhu Devi and Pawan Kumar, that Geeta Devi, wife of Udho Ram, came to fetch milk from the house of Dhobi Devi and when she asked about the whereabouts of the man sitting near the hearth Dhobi Devi informed her that the respondent is the real brother of her brother-in-law; that the respondent, after taking meals, slept in the company of Pawan Kumar whereas Madhu Devi, a minor aged about 3 years, slept with her grand-mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC554; 2003CriLJ826; JT2002(10)SC530; (2002)10SCC324
1. Seven persons were charge sheeted for causing the death of Hoshiar Singh, Ram Chander, Pawan Kumar, Ajit on the intervening night of 4/5th October 1993 by entering into dwelling houses of Hoshiar Singh and Surat Singh and causing grievous hurt to Sahbo, Sarjo, Ashok and Surat Singh.2. In brief, the prosecution version put forth before the Trial Court is that on the intervening night of 4/5th October 1993, when Satpal, his brother Ram Chander, his father Hoshiar Singh, his mother Sahbo and his mother's sister Sarjo were sleeping on the roof of their house, seven accused armed with Gandasis and Pharsas climbed on the roof of the house and inflicted injuries upon Hoshiar Singh and Sahbo and again they targeted Surat Singh and also inflicted injuries upon Pawan and Ajit. It was specifically stated that Jagdish and Randhir gave lathi blows on the back, buttocks, legs and heads of Surat Singh. Rani, Rohtash, Satbir Singh and Jasbir also inflicted injuries upon Ashok. Similarly it was alle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC707; 2003CriLJ871; JT2002(10)SC264; (2003)1SCC632; [2002]SUPP5SCR86
Dharmadhikari, J,1. Leave to appeal is granted.2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties are finally heard on the merits of the appeal.3. The complainant has approached this court against a laconic order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttranchal granting amongst several co- accused, bail to accused-respondent herein who is facing trial with others in Crime No. 148 of 2001 for offences under Section 302, 307, 323 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The provisions of Criminal Procedure Code confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bails to accused pending trials or in appeals against convictions. Since the jurisdiction is discretionary it is required to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In granting or refusing the bail, the courts are required to indicate, may be very briefly, the reasons for grant or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC657; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)1141; 2003CriLJ841; JT2002(10)SC349; 2003(1)KLT542(SC); (2003)1SCC644; [2002]SUPP5SCR89; 2003(1)LC436(SC); (2003)2UPLBEC1181
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Police Officers are supposed to be the members of a disciplined force. It is of utmost importance to curb any tendency in them to flout orders of the Court. It is more so when flouting of order results in deprivation of personal liberty of an individual. If protectors of law, to take revenge, defy court orders they will have to be sternly dealt with and appropriate punishment inflicted also with a view to send a message across the board that such an act cannot be countenanced.2. The appellant is a police officer. At the relevant time,i.e. on 13thNovember, 1990, he was the officer-in-charge of the police station in question. A police officer of that police station had reported that the respondent had assaulted him on 30th September, 1990 which was the immersion day of Goddess Durga while he was on duty and the respondent had been asked by him to give side to other image (Medha) to pass. A case was registered against the respondent. 3. Now, the admitted facts. In con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC565; 2003(2)ALD27(SC); JT2002(10)SC271; (2003)1SCC444; [2002]SUPP5SCR66
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The suit premises are a residential house comprised in CTS Nos. 936 & 939 of Ward II of Hubli City. the premises are owned by a temple - a religious institution but not under the management of the State Government. The adoptive father of the respondent, Late Shankarbhat, was pujari and manager of the temple. The appellant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by Late Shankarbhat. Shankarbhat has through a registered deed of adoption, adopted the respondent as his son who is presently pujari and manager of the temple. The appellant has been paying rent to the respondent. It is not in doubt, nor in dispute that whatever be the ownership of the suit premises the respondent is certainly the rent collector. 2. The respondent claiming himself to be the owner of the premises filed a suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant on the grounds available under Clauses (h) and (p) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC524; 2003(1)ALT46(SC); (2003)2SCC604; [2002]SUPP5SCR72; 2003(1)LC373(SC)
Srikrishna, J.1. By this appeal the State of West Bengal and its authorities impugn the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta which quashed an order of the State Government dated 23rd May, 2001 appointing the 2nd respondent as Director General and Inspector General of Police.2. The salient facts necessary for deciding this appeal arise as follows:-There are four posts of Director General of Police (DGP) in the State of West Bengal and they are: (a) Director General & Inspector General of Police (DG & IGP), (b) Director General & Commandant General of Home Guards (DGCGHG), (c) Director (Training) and (d) Director (Intelligence). All the four posts of DGP are in the grade and pay scale of Rs. 24050-650-Rs. 26000/-. The first respondent (Manas Kumar Chakraborty) and the second respondent (Dinesh Chandra Vajpai) are officers of the IPS cadre of the 1966 batch. In the initial merit list, the name of the first respondent appeared at serial No. 2 and that of the second respondent at serial N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC557; 2003(3)ALT63(SC); 2003CriLJ829; JT2002(10)SC361; (2003)1SCC670; (2003)1UPLBEC770
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The appellants, by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court have been held guilty of civil contempt. The case against the appellants is that despite the order dated 27th September, 1997 passed by the competent forum granting an order of injunction restraining the department not to disconnect the electricity of respondent No. 1 from the premises in question, the electricity was disconnected. The order of restrain was admittedly communicated to the counsel for the Electricity Board. It is further not in dispute that the said order had also been communicated to the appellants. The case of the appellants was that respondent No. 1 was under some misapprehension that its power supply alone was disconnected. In fact, the power supply of more than 30 industries in the industrial estate in question including that of the respondent No. 1 was disconnected in the morning of 28th September, 1991 at about 9.30 a.m. to undertake repair work which was completed by 9.50 a....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC714; JT2002(10)SC514; (2003)2SCC247; [2002]SUPP5SCR62; 2003(1)UJ391(SC)
1. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the common order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in Civil Writ petition Nos. 1029, 1054 and 1956 of 1986, dated March 9, 1987.2. The facts, insofar as they are relevant for our purpose, may briefly be noted here.3. The respondents are landholders under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act'). The holding of the respondents was determined by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran on January 14, 1971. It was found that the respondents did not possess surplus land. While so, the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act') came into force on January 1, 1973. The lands held by the respondents were again subjected to enquiry under the 1973 Act and by order dated February 28, 1976, the authorised officer decided that the respondents were having surplus land. The respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Kota - the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC624; JT2002(10)SC224; (2003)2SCC3; [2002]SUPP5SCR47; 2003(1)LC122(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. An order for eviction from residential building on the ground of requirement of the landlord for his own occupation passed by the Controller and upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority has been upset and reversed by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The aggrieved landlord is in appeal by special leave.2. Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter the Act, for short) contemplates a landlord making an application to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of residential building if he requires it for his own occupation. The order of the Controller is subject to appeal before Appellate Authority. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, the High Court is conferred with jurisdiction of calling for and examining the records for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act. The High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC532; 2003(3)AWC2545(SC); 2003(1)BLJR466; [2003(1)JCR239(SC)]; JT2002(10)SC203; (2003)1SCC462; [2002]SUPP5SCR57; 2003(1)LC73(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. A decree for eviction upholding availability of ground under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) was passed in favour of the appellant-landlords and against the tenant-respondents by learned Munsif Biharsharif. A revision preferred under Section 14(8) of the Act has been allowed by the High Court and decree of trial court set aside. The aggrieved landlords are in appeal by special leave.2. It would suffice to briefly sum up and notice the facts as alleged and found proved by the trial Court. Out of the four plaintiff-appellants, three are brothers and fourth is the sister. They are all sons and daughter of Ram Chandra Sao. Ram Chandra Sao has been running a business of dealing in onions and potatoes. Out of his three sons, plaintiff No. 1 passed B.Sc. in 1984, plaintiff No. 2 passed B.A. Hons. in 1994 and plaintiff No. 3 passed matriculation in 1988. All the th...
Tag this Judgment!