Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2783; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)241; 2002CriLJ3572; 2002(3)Crimes53(SC); JT2002(5)SC324; 2002(5)SCALE321; (2002)6SCC460; [2002]SUPP1SCR281; 2002(2)LC1079(SC)
ORDER1. The appellant and his brother were charged for double murder - one of Ashok Kumar and other of Ram Prasad. Appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and his brother for offence under Section 302/34 IPC by Court of Sessions.They were awarded life sentence.2. During the pendency of appeal in the High Court against conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Sessions, brother of the appellant died. The appellant's appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. There was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges, one expressed the opinion that the appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed and the other learned Judge was of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Both the learned Judges gave separate judgments which are fairly lengthy and contain a detailed examination of evidence. In view of this difference of opinion the matter was placed before a third learned Judge.3. The case of the prosecution is based on the ocular testimony of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2707; 2002(3)BLJR1778; 2002CriLJ3538; 2002(3)Crimes43(SC); JT2002(5)SC326; RLW2002(4)SC615; 2002(5)SCALE297; (2002)6SCC451
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellants, who were accused Nos. 2 to 4, were charged for offence under Section 302 IPC by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh along with one Ishar Yadav, who was A-1 before the said court. The learned Sessions Judge after the trial on consideration of the evidence held that the prosecution had not established the charge against the first accused and acquired him while he found the present appellants guilty of the charge punishable under Section 302 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Their appeal being unsuccessful before the High Court at Patna which found them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence, the appellants have preferred this appeal.3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:On 16.9.1990 at about 4 p.m. one Mahabir Mahto who was grazing cattle near his field was alleged to have been attacked by the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2715; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)275; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)203; (2002)4BOMLR509; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN150; 2002CriLJ3546; 2002(3)Crimes29(SC); JT2002(5)SC289; 2002(5)SCALE289; (2002)7
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This court by Order dated 04.5.2001 in this case has rejected the Special Leave Petition preferred by appellants Nos. 1 & 2 for appeal to this court against their conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 323, 201 read with Section 34 on the Indian Penal Code [for short 'I.P.C.']. This appeal by grant of leave, therefore, is confined to the consideration of the cases of appellants Nos. 3 to 6.2. By the judgment of the court of Additional Session Judge, Billoli in Session Case No. 3 of 1994, the appellants before us have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC to undergo a sentence of imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, RI for six months. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default, to undergo RI for six months. They are separately convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 201 read wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD(Cri)272; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)192; JT2002(5)SC285; 2002(5)SCALE305; (2002)6SCC247; 2002(2)LC1074(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellant above named along with 7 other persons was charged for offence under Sections 396, 302 and 412 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram in Sessions Case No. 79/1996. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant and other co-accused, except A-2 who died before the commencement of trial, guilty of the said offences and convicted and sentenced all of them to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 396 IPC; in default, RI for 5 years. The appellant and A-4 to A-9 were also convicted for offence under Section 412 IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each; in default to suffer RI for 3 years. On appeal, the High Court found all the accused including this appellant not guilty of the charge under Sections 302 and 396 and acquitted them while so far as this appellant and some of the accused named above are concerned, the High Court held them guilty of the offence under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2764; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)219; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN37; 2002CriLJ3563; 2002(3)Crimes18(SC); JT2002(5)SC425; RLW2003(1)SC1; 2002(5)SCALE316; (2002)6SCC593; [2002]SUPP1SCR2
ORDER1. Criminal Appeal No. 450/2002 has been filed by Sunder and Criminal Appeal No. 602/2002 by Satbir Singh under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA' in short) against the judgment and order dated 5th and 6th May, 1998 passed by the Designated Court, Delhi. By the said judgment theappellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. as also Section 25 of the Arms Act.Besides these two appellants, the three other accused who were convicted by the Designated Court by common judgment were Suleman, Chiman and Sadhu Ram. Suleman and Sadhu Ram were also convicted under Section 5 of the TADA Act. We are, however, not concerned with their cases since the appeals filed by the said three were decided by this Court in case : 1999CriLJ2525 : 1999CriLJ2525 - Suleman and Ors. v. State of Delhi , and their conviction under Sections 399 and402 I.P.C. was set aside. The conviction and sentence under TADA Act was, however, main...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2710; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)321; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)223; 2002CriLJ3540; 2002(3)Crimes36(SC); JT2002(5)SC388; 2002(5)SCALE308; (2002)6SCC462
Santosh Hegde, J. 1. The above criminal appeals are preferred by the appellants against eh common judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Murder Reference No. 2/99, Crl. A. 130-DB to 132-DB/99 and Criminal Revision No. 443/99.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these cases are as follows:3. There was a civil dispute pending between the deceased Virsa Singh and his family on the one hand and Kuljinder Singh on the other in regard toa small plot of land which was abutting the residence of the said parties in the village of Srawan Bodla at Police Station Sadar Malout. In the said dispute, appellant No. 2 and his family were supporting Kuljinder Singh. On 11.10.1996 the civil case pertaining to the said dispute was listed before the concerned court and in the said proceedings the deceased Virsa Singh had obtained an interim order against the said Kuljinder Singh. On the date of the incident at about 3.30 p.m. there was a verbal fight which also le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(10)SCALE486; (2003)9SCC276; [2003]129STC1(SC)
ORDERIn the instant case, the appellant purchases raw hides and skins which are then processed and the tanned or dressed hides and skins are then exported. The appellant contends that it is entitled to the benefit of Section 5(3) of the Central Act. This Court in K.A.K. Anwar & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR1998SC518 has categorically held that dressed hides and skins are different goods from raw hides and skins. Section 5(3) would be applicable where the goods which are sold or purchased have not undergone any transformation. In the instant case what is purchased by the appellant are raw hides and skins and it is not the same goods which are exported. Those raw hides and skins are then processed and it is the dressed hides and skins which are exported. Therefore, section 5(3) will have no application. The appeals are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2728; [2002]111CompCas617(SC); II(2002)CPJ11(SC); 99(2002)DLT76(SC); 2002(82)ECC683; 2002LC14(SC); 2002(145)ELT241(SC); JT2002(5)SC253; 2002(5)SCALE253; (2002)6SC
Kirpal, C.J.I.Civil Appeal Nos. 2330 of 2000, 3572 of 2000, 76 of 2002 and S.L.P.(C) No. 22549 of 2001:1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are against orders passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTP Commission') whereby Indonesian manufacturers of float glass had been restrained from exporting the same to India at allegedly predatory prices.3. Respondent No. 1 is an association of float glass manufacturers in India. During March-April, 1998, complaints were made by the said respondent to the Customs Department, alleging that the Indonesian manufacturers of float glass, in association with Indian importers were allegedly indulging in heavy under-invoicing. The respondents were, however, informed by the Customs Department in Calcutta that if they had any genuine grievance, the same could be made before the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce dealing with anti-dumping complaints. On 26th May, 1998, the respondent No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2637; JT2002(5)SC331; 2002(5)SCALE281; (2002)6SCC327
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Kerala challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court on 4.1.2000 in Writ Appeal No. 2391 of 1998. The matter arises under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act').2. The husband of the respondent in his capacity as Managing Partner of a firm filed a statement before the Taluk Land Board under Section 85(2) of the Act. Section 85 relates to surrender of excess land. The Taluk Land Board held enquiry and passed an order on 27th March, 1982 holding that an extent of 193.26 acres of land was to be surrendered by the declarant as excess land held by him. Against the final order passed by the Taluk Land Board, the declarant filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court of Kerala under Section 103 of the Act.Some properties had been earlier alienated by the declarant and as the alienees were affected by the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, they too filed two Civil Revision P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2639; 2002(5)ALT36(SC); JT2002(5)SC316; (2002)3MLJ121(SC); 2002(5)SCALE249; (2002)6SCC242; [2002]SUPP1SCR223; 2002(3)SCT681(SC); 2002(3)SLJ211(SC); 2002(2)LC1117(S
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. By an order made on August 30, 1996 the Government of India appointed the petitioner, who was District and Sessions Judge in West Tripura, Agartala, as a Judicial Member in the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal']. It was indicated in the said order that the appointment of the petitioner will be for a period of five years from the date of joining or till he attains the age of sixty two years whichever is earlier. The petitioner made a representation that he is eligible for re-appointment after expiry of the term of five years until he attains the age of sixty two years as has been indicated by this Court in Sampath Kumar etc. v. Union of India and Ors., : (1987)ILLJ128SC : (1987)ILLJ128SC .The Department of Personnel informed the petitioner of the amended provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] to the effect that a person whose term has expired will be eligible for considerat...
Tag this Judgment!