Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(5)SC374
ORDER1. The appellant along with Ram Parshad and Sarup Chand was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of theI.P.C. by the additional sessions judge, Gurgaon. Accused Sarup Chand was given the benefit of doubt and the appellant along with Ram Parshad was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment for the main offence. In appeal, the conviction of the appellant and Ram Parshad under Section 302 was altered holding them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 part-l besides offences under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant and Ram Parshad were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the main offence. Their conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 325 and 323 read with 34 IPC, as awarded by the sessions court, was upheld. S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2082/1992 filed by Ram P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1109; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)453; JT2002(2)SC184; 2002(2)SCALE220; (2002)3SCC18; [2002]1SCR1082; 2002(1)UJ566(SC)
Leave is granted.This appeal by special leave and the writ petition were heard together as the questions involved are common and, therefore, by this judgment we dispose of both the appeal and the writ petition.The appellant Avtar Singh, a convict, is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. He filed an application before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking for a direction to the State Government to include the period of parole availed by him in the total period of imprisonment undergone by him. The application was dismissed by the impugned judgment holding that the period of parole cannot be counted towards the actual sentence undergone by him. Being aggrieved, present appeal by special leave has been filed. Avtar Singh has also filed the writ petition challenging the vires of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the sub-section is arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2007)DMC120SC; JT2002(2)SC641
ORDER1. This appeal is by the two appellants who have been convicted under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC by the learned sessions judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for seven years for conviction under Section 306 and three years for conviction under Section 498A. The prosecution alleged that during the lifetime of the first wife-Kalindi, Shiv Charan married for the second time, Mohini, but after marriage both Kalindi and Shiv Charan tortured Mohini as a result of which she ultimately committed suicide by burning herself. The incident occurred inside the house of Shiv Charan while Kaiindi and Shiv Charan were in one room and Mohini was in some other room. The learned sessions judge on appreciation of evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove both the charges against both Kalindi and Shiv Charan beyond reasonable doubt and convicted both as already said. On appeal, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence and affirmed the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC88
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. J.K. Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. It is the say of the appellant that in an auction conducted by the estate officer, union territory Chandigarh, on or about April, 1990, the appellant company was the highest bidder with a bid of Rs. 76,10,000/- in respect of a plot No. 332-33-34, sector 34, City center, Chandigarh and the appellant was required to pay 25% of the bid amount at the time of auction, which was paid by the appellant. An allotment letter, in favour of the appellant, was issued on 5th April 1990 and as per the said letter, the appellant was required to pay the remaining amount by three equal annual instalments of Rs. 19,20,000/- each commencing from the year 1991 onwards. It is also stated that the appellant completed the construction of the said property immediately but could not utilise the property in yielding income so as to finance the payment of instalme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(5)SC304; (2004)10SCC84
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 dated 27-4-1995 was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed in Rajasthan High Court, Respondent No. 1 was an employee of the central social welfare board and he was working as welfare officer. He had been sent ondeputation as secretary on 2.11.88 and he was finally absorbed by order dated 24.1.1991. Thus, he became an employee of the state board. While he was continuing as an employee of the stateboard, the appropriate authority found several derelictions on his part, including the dereliction of release of Rs. 8 lakhs in favour of his own brother for nonexistent projects. He was suspended from service in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and then a notice was issued to show cause as to why, for the charges against him, he should not be appropriately dealt with. The said respondent No. 1 filed his reply to the notice of show cause and finally, a regular inquiry was held in October, 1994. Two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(5)SC322
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals have been directed against the interim order dated 24.8.2001 passed by a single judge of the High Court of Allahabad in the writ petition No. 4349 (S/S)/2001 titled U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Karamchari Sangharsh Morcha through its president v. State of U.P. : JT2002(5)SC322 through its chief secretary, and the interim order dated 31.10.2001 passed by a division bench of the High Court in special appeal No. 341 of 2001 (S/B) titled State of U.P. through its chief secretary v. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Karamchari Sangharsh Morcha through its president. The operative portion of the order dated 24,8.2001 reads: 'Having regard to all what has been said above, an interim mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 to apply the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission to all the employees of the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam in accordance with the recommendations of the managing director of the Nigam. However, this order will be subject ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1147; 2002(2)AWC1268(SC); [2002(93)FLR179]; JT2002(2)SC238; 2002LabIC987; (2002)ILLJ1053SC; (2002)2MLJ137(SC); RLW2002(2)SC319; 2002(2)SCALE242; (2002)3SCC25; [200
1. Leave granted.2. In the instant case, dispute was referred to the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days and his service had been terminated without paying him any retrenchment compensation. The appellant herein did not accept this and contended that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. The Tribunal vide its award dated 10th August, 1998, came to the conclusion that the service had been terminated without giving retrenchment compensation. In arriving at the conclusion that the respondent had worked for 240 days, the Tribunal stated that the burden was on the Management to show that there was justification in termination of the service and that the affidavit of the workman was sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year.3.For the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the appellant is an "industry" or not, though reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Pratam Singh Narsin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(2)SC480
1. Leave granted.2. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having regard to the notices issued, we do feel it inclined not to record our concurrence with the judgment of the High Court3. Before, however, dealing with the matter any further, we wish to place on record our displeasure in the matter by reason of the suppression of material facts in the petition before the apex court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The petitions are totally silent as regards the filing of the second review petition before the High Court.4. We feel it necessary to record that in filing the petitions before this Court, it is the duty incumbent and obligation upon the advocate to place on record, the entire set of facts faithfully and without any concoction therein. Suppression of the filing of the second review petition cannot but be said to be suppression of material facts and on this score alone, the appeals are liable to be rejected and thus, we find some force in the conten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(7)SCALE487; (2002)10SCC741
R.C. Lahoti and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. Vide order dated 19-10-2001 this Court requested the Chairmen of the State Human Rights Commissions of different States/UTs or the Committees appointed by the Chief Justices of the High Courts in the States where State Human Rights Commissions do not exist to report on compliance within the States/UTs with the directions (11 requirements) laid down by this Court in D.K. Basu case1 on 18-12-1996. Reports from the Commissions/Committees from the States of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Punjab have been received and we appreciate the commendable work which they have done and in apprising this Court of the state of affairs prevailing in these States. Indeed, the reports project a dismal picture prevailing in these States in the matter of compliance with the requirements laid down in D.K. Basu case1. No serious effort appears to have been made by these States and their senior officials in apprising the police personnel, dealing with people, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
SETHI,J.In all these appeals, the FIRs and subsequent proceedings pending against the respondents under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1988 Act") were quashed by the High Court in exercise of the powers vesting in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused- respondents had been apprehended while accepting the bribe by laying the trap under the 1988 Act. The High Court found that as the investigations had not been conducted by the authorised officers under the 1988 Act, the same were vitiated and deserved to be quashed.The questions of law to be adjudicated upon in these appeals are:(1) Whether the notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (since repealed) empowering and authorising Inspector of Police to investigate the cases registered under the said Act are not saved under the saving provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!