Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC520; 2002(143)ELT483(SC); (2002)9SCC202
ORDER1. The first point that is argued before us is in regard to whether the crushing of limestone by the appellants into limestone chips of desired sizes by screening amounts to manufacture. The appellants did not carry the matter before the excise authorities to the Tribunal, which would have been the appropriate place to decide whether the process employed by the appellants amounted to manufacture, but approached the High Court directly and the High Court came to the conclusion that the emergence of a new marketable product, namely, limestone chips of specific size amounted to manufacture.2. It is contended before us that the High Court did not consider the judgments that related to the crushing of limestone lumps to obtain limestone chips. Judgments lay down law. The law is to be applied to facts. What the facts are has not been allowed to be placed in the proper perspective. It was for the appellants to have approached the High Court, set out their process of crushing before it an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1810; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)952; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)356; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN47; 2002CriLJ2529; 2002(2)Crimes375(SC); 2002(81)ECC8; JT2002(4)SC68; 2002(2)KLT211(SC); RLW2002(4
Sethi, J. 1. For allegedly possessing 11 gms. of opium without licence, the appellant has been convicted under Section 9(c) read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant has already undergone sentence of about 8 years.2. No-one has appeared for the appellant. From the memo of the appeal it is found that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant has been assailed mainly on the ground of violation of the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. The learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-State has, however, contended that as there was substantive compliance of the provisions of the Act, no interference is called for.3. According to the prosecution, the Sub Inspector...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2477; 2002(3)ALT55; JT2002(4)SC426; 2002(3)SCALE672; (2002)4SCC510; [2002]3SCR90; 2002(2)SCT746(SC)
Ruma Pal, J. 1. The question to be decided in both these appeals is whether the appellant could have, as a matter of policy, made available a facility for additional training exclusively for a particular group of trainees. The question arises in the context of two schemes formulated by the appellant to tackle the problem of rural poverty and unemployment amongst the rural educated youth. 2. The first scheme which was formulated in 1981 (referred to as the Dairy scheme) sought to provide for those who had tiny pieces of land in the rural areas and who moved to urban areas in search of jobs. The State Government was of the view that there was a need to encourage such landed unemployed youths not to depend on cultivation or horticulture alone as these only provided seasonal income but to engage in dairy farming for which the State was both climatically and geographically well suited. In addition to easing the urban population, it was felt that theproduction of dairy products would not onl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1875; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN157; 2002CriLJ2565; 2002(2)Crimes228(SC); JT2002(4)SC255; 2002(3)SCALE706; (2002)9SCC90; [2002]3SCR162; 2002(2)LC855(SC)
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is -which authority has the power to pass order for interim release of the forest produce seized under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963? (for short 'the Act'). Is it the Authorized Officer under the Act or the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure?3. The facts of the case relevant for appreciating the question may be stated thus:4. A lorry bearing registration No. KL-10-J-1728 carrying 5 barrels of sandalwood oil weighing 136.5 kgs. was seized by the officials of the Forest Mobile Squad, Udupi on 2nd of March 2000 on the allegation of illegal transportation of the forest produce. FIR No. 08437 OR No. 108/99-2000 was registered on the same day. On 3rd March, 2000 a report about the seizure was submitted to the Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kundapur, under Section 71A of the Act. By order of the Authorised Officer dated 7th March, 2000 custody of the seized...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1963; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)351; (2002)3CALLT51(SC); (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN119; 2002CriLJ2642; 2002(2)Crimes291(SC); JT2002(4)SC235; 2002(3)SCALE570; (2002)9SCC86; [2002]3SC
Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Court of Sessions Judge, Balasore (State of Orissa) by Judgment dated 17.8.1980 in sessions trial No. 34 of 1990 convicted the two accused (the respondent herein) for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced them to five years imprisonment.2. The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No. 236 of 1990 by judgment dated 12.1.1994 on re-appreciation of evidence acquitted the accused against which the State of Orissa has preferred this appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix PW 1 Promila Ranjit went to Police Station Baliapal, district Balasore on 5.11.89 at about 10.30 in the morning and lodged FIR to give full narration of the incident of rape committed by accused on her. She supported her version in FIR in her examination as PW 1 in Court. It is stated by her that in the intervening night between 4-5 of November, 1989 while her husband had gone to his sister's house at Prapatpur sometime in the midnight when she was sl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1832; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)342; 2002(50)BLJR1069; 2002CriLJ2539; 2002(2)Crimes347(SC); JT2002(4)SC74; 2002(3)SCALE560; (2002)4SCC352; [2002]2SCR1173; 2002(1)LC715(SC)
Shah, J. 1. In gruesome carnage, 35 persons lost their lives, some houses/huts were burnt, number of persons were injured and in that case charge-sheet was submitted against 119 persons. Out of them, 13 were tried by the Designated Court of Sessions Judge, Gaya in G.R. Case No.430 of 1992, Tekari Police Station Case No.19 of 1992 under the provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA Act') and under Section 302/149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). After recording the evidence, by judgment and order dated 8.6.2001, the Designated Court(a) acquitted A-1 Nanhe Yadav @ Dina Yadav, A-10 Nanhak Teli, A-11 Naresh Chamar and A-12 Ramashish Mahto;(b) convicted A-5 Veer Kuer Paswan, A-8 Krishna Mochi, A-9 Dharmendra Singh @ Dharu Singh, A-13 Nanhe Lal Mochi and sentenced to death;(c) convicted A-2 Bihari Manjhi, A-4 Ramautar Dusadh @ Lakhan Dusadh, A-6 Rajendra Paswan, A-7 Wakil Yadav and imposed life imprisonm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1836; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)4; 2002(2)BLJR1098; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN60; 2002CriLJ2541; 2002(2)Crimes222(SC); JT2002(4)SC62; 2002(3)SCALE554; (2002)9SCC208; [2002]2SCR1164
Sethi, J.1. Contending that the prosecution had failed to prove the presence of all the appellants and the existence of common objection within the meaning of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned counsel for the appellants has urged that except appellant Manoj Kumar no other accused could be convicted or sentenced for the death of the deceased persons. It is submitted that even if the appellants are proved to the be present on spot when the occurrence took place, they cannot be held guilty for the commission of any offence as they were not proved to be sharing any common objection but were only by-standers. It has been further argued on behalf of some appellants that the prosecution witnesses being interested were not reliable and the courts below wrongly relied upon their testimony to convict and sentence the appellants.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeals are that on 23rd July, 1994 at about 2.00 a.m. the appellants accompanied by 300-400 persons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1965; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)761; (2002)3CALLT9(SC); 2002CriLJ2645; 2002(2)Crimes236(SC); JT2002(4)SC186; 2002(3)SCALE602; (2002)6SCC81; [2002]3SCR1
Shah, J.1. With respect I regret for my inability to agree with the judgment rendered by my learned brother Justice Agrawal. At the outset, it requires to be stated that this case illustrates how faulty, delayed, casual, unscientific investigation and lapse of long period in trial affects the administration of justice which in turn certain shakes the public confidence in the system. Is it not possible for the authorities to find out ways and means for speedy, efficient, scientific investigation in at least heinous brutal carnage and for trying the case within few months of occurrence? If this is not done, it is of no use to complaint that accused are not punished in such cases. In any case, for deciding such criminal case, it is the bounden duty of the court to appreciate the evidence brought on record, as it is, in accordance with established law without being influenced by the allegations leveled by the prosecuting agency or by the incident. Before appreciating the evidence, I would ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3693; 2002(4)SCALE55
ORDER1. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Altaf Ahmed and counsel for the parties.2. In continuation of our order dated 5th February, 2002 and considering various provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987, particularly S. 5 which inter alia provides that Central Government may in any part of India or State Government may within the ^limits of its jurisdiction establish or maintain psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing homes for the admission, treatment and care of mentally ill persons at such places as it thinks fit. It is directed as under :1. Every State and Union Territory (UT) shall undertake a comprehensive need assessment survey and file the report thereof on the following aspects ; (a) Estimated availability of Mental Health Resource personnel in the State, including psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric social workers and psychiatric nurses in both the public and private (licensed) sector; (b) Type of Mental Health Delivery System available in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2002)ACC601; AIR2002SC1742; 2002(3)ALD79(SC); 2002(2)BLJR1137; (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN123; [2002(2)JCR121(SC)]; JT2002(4)SC43; 2002(3)SCALE545; (2002)4SCC519; [2002]2SCR1157
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave is granted in all the special leave petitions.2. These appeals filed by certain private stage carriage operators in Calcutta region of the State of West Bengal are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta disposing of a batch of appeals filed by some private operators challenging the judgment passed by single Judges declining to grant any relief to the petitioners. Since all these appeals have been heard together, the facts in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8634/99 are being referred for the sake of convenience.3. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeals by passing the order operative portion of which reads as follows:'For the reasons aforementioned these appeals and the Writ applications are disposed of with the direction upon the Regional Transport Authority to consider grant of permit as if the 1980 Scheme is no longer in force and for that purpose applications filed by the concerned operators may be conside...
Tag this Judgment!