Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD(Cri)643; JT2002(Suppl1)SC7; 2002(2)LC1246(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in criminal appeal No. 14 of 1996 further reducing the sentence imposed on the accused, respondent herein, the State of Karnataka has filed this appeal assailing the said judgment. 3. On the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix PW-1, the respondent was tried for the charge of rape punishable under Section 376, Indian Penal Code. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record, held the accused guilty of the charge of rape and convicted him therefore. Considering the question of appropriate sentence to be imposed, the trial court observed, 'therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that it is a fit case for sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and this in my view would meet the ends of justice. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. The bail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD(Cri)907; JT2002(Suppl1)SC54; RLW2003(1)SC69; 2002(2)LC935(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. The accused has filed this appeal assailing the judgment passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowing the appeal filed by the state against the acquittal of the appellant against the order passed by the sessions judge, Hamir Pur, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') convicting under Section 7 of the Act and imposing the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in default, six months simple imprisonment in lieu thereof. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised three contentions in support of the appeal. 4. The first contention relates to erroneous appreciation of the material on record by the trial court which was confirmed by the High Court, particularly relating to non-examination of one Suresh Kumar by the accused in support of his defence. According to the defence case, Suresh Kumar was the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(142)ELT521(SC); (2002)9SCC389
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. Against the judgment and order dated 7-1-1999 passed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, the complainant - Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Legal), Head Quarter Office, Hyderabad, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1999 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad for enhancement of sentence imposed against the respondents. That appeal was dismissed by the High Court by holding that - (1)' appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) Cr.P.C. could be filed by the Public Prosecutor duly authorised by the Central Government and Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant fairly admitted that complainant was not empowered by the Central Government to file the appeal; and (2) appeal was not filed by the Public Prosecutor as contemplated under Section 377(2) Cr. P.C. but was filed by the Special Public Prosecutor.4. For the first ground, the High Court ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC959; 2002(4)ALD80(SC); 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)272; (SCSuppl)2002(2)CHN48; (2002)173CTR(SC)477; JT2002(2)SC52; (2002)2MLJ138(SC); (2002)2PLR346; RLW2002(2)SC318; 2002(2)SC
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Jarnail Singh, respondent No. 2, executed two documents of sale (Exs. P-2 and D-1) on November 25, 1991. Having regard to the findings of the courts below that Ex. P-2 was executed earlier than Ex. D-1 land having noted that Ex. P-2 in favour of the first respondent was executed at 10.00 a.m. and it was not shown when Ex. D-1 was executed in favour of the petitioner, the High Court, vide its order dated October 25, 2001, in RSA No. 4050 of 1999 confirmed the concurrent finding of the courts below holding that Ex. P-2 prevails over Ex. D-1 and thus dismissed the second appeal. It is against the said order that this Special Leave Petition is filed.3. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 it is well-settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect from the time when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(2)KLT251(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is being prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The High Court refused to entertain the plea of lack of sanction for prosecution by the Competent Authority on the ground that it would tantamount to review of the earlier order and the Court does not possess the power to review the earlier order. 2. Under Section 19 of the Act no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the Authority competent to remove the person concerned. In the case in hand, the Secretary (Vigilance) appears to have accorded sanction to prosecute. The appellant's case is that the Secretary (Vigilance) was authorised to grant sanction only on 23.4.1994 and there is no order of the State Government making the Secretary (Vigilance) competent to accord sanction prior to the said date. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002]254ITR91(SC); JT2002(5)SC14; (2002)3SCC124; 2002(1)LC427(SC)
ORDERRaju, J.1. Pursuant to the order dated 28.3.2001, these matters, which were directedto be delinked from the other batch, have come up for hearing.Civil Appeal No. 7248 of 1999:2. This appeal has been filed against the decision dated 15.4.1999 of theIncome-Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Bombay. The saiddecision was rendered by the Special Bench of the Income-Tax SettlementCommission constituted by the Chairman in exercise of his powers under Section245BA(5A) of the Income-Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). TheReference to the Special Bench was in respect of the following questions:-1. Was the Special Bench of the Settlement Commissionright in holding in the case of Om Metals and MineralsPvt. Ltd. : [1992]193ITR57(Delhi) that the assessment orderpassed by the assessing officer before the admission ofthe settlement application subsisted and recoveryproceedings continued even after the admission of thesaid application, especially after the judgment of theSup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR697]; JT2002(3)SC92; (2002)9SCC485
ORDER1. The petitioners are the head constables of the Gujarat Police. When the government decided to set up a separate organisation to be called as Intelligence Bureau, these petitioners were drifted into that bureau way back in the year 1991 by way of deputation. It was indicated also in the scheme that was framed for having this bureau, that recruitment rules will be separately framed for the re-designated posts incorporating, inter alia, the method of filling them. In accordance with the aforesaid provisions in the scheme, that was evolved on 3rd November, 1990, rules came into existence by a notification dated 7.12.1991. Under the rules, more specifically rule 29 (a), it was stipulated that the post in the bureau could be manned by direct selection or by transfer of a person from amongst the persons working in the cadre of head constables, grade-l or grade-II (armed branch or unarmed branch or wireless branch) of the Gujarat subordinate service. The rules also provide for test to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC985; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)429; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)234; II(2002)BC1(SC); 2002(3)BomCR13; (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN40; [2002]108CompCas838(SC); (2002)IICompLJ228(SC); 2002CriLJ1479;
Leave granted.This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging that the respondent herein had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, "the Act"]. The appellant alleged that he and his two friends had advanced a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs to the respondent about four years back to enable him to start a petrol pump and that the respondent did not pay back the said amount despite repeated demands and finally at the request of the appellant, on 30.3.1998 the respondent issued a cheque in favour of the appellant. The appellant presented the cheque for payment, but the cheque was dishonoured by the bank for the reason "Account closed". Thereafter, the appellant issued a statutory demand notice and as the respondent failed to pay the amount, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate by the appellant. In the com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1036; JT2002(1)SC646; (2002)2PLR518; 2002(2)SCALE68; (2002)3SCC118; [2002]1SCR910; 2002(1)UJ571(SC)
This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Revision No.872 of 1996 dated May 28, 1998. By that order the High Court upheld the judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.A.No.206 of 20.5.94 dated February 3, 1996 confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller dated April 6, 1994.The appellant is the tenant of a portion of the first floor of 'shop-cum-flat', S.C.F.No.14, Sector 22, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises') of which the respondents are the landlords. The relationship between the appellant and the respondents is governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which was extended to Chandigarh by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 and subsequently amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act').The respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on two grounds but what su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1061; 2002(4)ALD90(SC); JT2002(1)SC657; (2002)2MLJ63(SC); 2002(2)SCALE98; (2002)3SCC98; [2002]1SCR919
The landlord-respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant-appellants from the suit premises described as Door No.244 and 264, Walltax Road, Chennai on the ground available under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter, 'the Act' for short), by applying to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. It was alleged in the application for eviction filed on 6th April, 1989 that the tenants did not pay the rent of premises Door No.264 for January and February, 1989 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and for premises Door No.244 for the month of February, 1989 at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. The tenants, in their written statement, denied their being defaulters and submitted that there was dispute as to the rate at which the rent was payable and also as to the quantum of arrears, though, they were agreeable and always prepared to pay the rent at which it was previously paid but for the ex...
Tag this Judgment!