Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2081; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)46; 2004(2)BLJR912; 2004CriLJ1825; (2004)3GLR2242; JT2004(4)SC129; 2004(4)KarLJ484; 2004(2)KLT342(SC); 2004(4)SCALE115; (2004)4SCC684
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Though by passage of time, the basic issues seem to have become infructuous, in view of the importance and recurring nature of the legal issues involved, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up. For deciding the issues involved in the appeal the background facts, which are practically undisputed, run as follows:The respondent by an order of Additional District Magistrate (in short the 'ADM'), Dakshina Kannada was restrained from entering the said district and from participating in any function in the district for a period of 15 days i.e. from dated 7.2.2003. A function was organised at Mangalore on 13.2.2003 where several religious leaders were shown as the likely participants. On 7.2.2003, a permission for holding the meeting was obtained by the organisers from the District Magistrate, Mangalore. Permission was also granted by the police authorities and the Corporation. The ADM at this stage passed an order dated 7.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2042; 2004CriLJ2040; JT2004(4)SC167; 2004(4)SCALE106; (2004)4SCC399
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. State of Andhra Pradesh questions legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondents who were accused Nos. 1 an 2 respectively before the Trial Court i.e. Special Judge, CBI, Visakhapatnam. The respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The Trial Court found each to be guilty and sentenced to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. They were also convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC'), sentenced to similar custodial punishment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. But in appeal the conviction and sentence were set aside.2. Factual position as highlighted by the prosecution is as follows:C. Uma Maheswara Rao (A-1) was working as Deputy Secretary of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and D. Satyananda Reddy (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2088; 2004(3)ALD134(SC); 2004CriLJ1832; JT2004(4)SC245; 2004(4)SCALE52; (2004)4SCC448
B.N. Agarwal, J. 1. These appeals by special leave have been filed against judgment rendered by Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code) by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have been allowed and seizure of stock of kattha and cutch under the provisions of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ('Act' for short) for violation of provisions of Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Transit Rules') and the consequent proceedings have been quashed.2. The short facts are that on 2.5.1988 a truck bearing No. USR-1147 was intercepted by the police near Shinde Police Outpost under Indra Ganj Police Station in the District of Gwalior within the State of Madhya Pradesh and it transpired that 281 cases of kattha manufactured by M/s. Harsh Wood Products (Respondent No. 2) were loaded therein at their factory premises, the same ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)8; 2004(2)BLJR1112; JT2004(4)SC391; 2004(3)MhLj503; 2004MPLJ336(SC); 2004(4)SCALE199; (2004)4SCC785
ORDER1. The petitioner, appearing in-person, is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal.2. The facts of this case disclose an uncommon story, The petitioner was victim of an offence under Section 376 and 328 of Indian Penal Code at the hands of the respondent Manoj Kumar. To save himself from the peril of conviction, the respondent agreed to enter into a marriage with the petitioner and the petitioner too agreed to do so. The dream of happy married life soon turned out to be a nightmare as the petitioner was deserted by the respondent. On these averments the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khanpur Nagar, The delay in disposal of the application persuaded the petitioner to knock the doors of the High Court. The High Court showed indulgence to the petitioner by directing the Family Court to expeditiously conclude the proceedings. As no substantial relief was forthcoming, the petitioner this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2004(2)JCR294(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC326; 2004(4)SCALE88; (2004)10SCC545
S.N. Variava, J. 1. This Appeal is against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 5th May, 1998.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants are engaged in the production of hard coke. For that purpose they had to purchase coal from various sources. The Appellants have been receiving allotment of coal at the rate of 4800 M.T. They however made a representation that they should be supplied 2400 M.T. from the North Tistra Colliery or Lodhana Colliery. The representations of the Appellants were not considered by the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. They therefore lodged a protest with the Coal Controller. The Coal Controller passed an order dated 16th June, 1997, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:'Since no action has been taken so far till date and the Unit is facing hardship and other problems in production, I am directed to inform you that the coal controller in exercise of the power under provisions of the Colliery Control Order, 1945, allows the prayer of M/s. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALT47(SC); [2004(101)FLR681]; [2004(4)JCR20(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC38; 2004(4)SCALE91; (2004)10SCC721; 2004(2)SLJ387(SC)
ORDER:'Shri Mohd.Khasim, Asst.Commandant (DSP-Category-3) was appointed by transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2 in the G.O.1st read above and commenced probation with effect from 1-3-1982. His probation was terminated and he was reverted as Asst.Commandant, though equivalent cadre, which he held prior to his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2, in the G.O.2nd read above. By virtue of High Court orders dated 10.10.1934 in W.P.M.P.No.1836 of 1984 in W.P.No.1398 of 1984 he was reappointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police category-2 by revoking the orders of termination of probation in G.O.3rd read above and allowed to continue that Balance of Training. The duty period from 3-3-1983 to 19-11-1984 was treated as duty in the cadre on Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2.Under Rule 6(a) of A.P.Police services rules, he shall be on probation for a total period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years. Rule 7(e) of the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2004(4)CHN124; JT2004(5)SC522; 2004(4)SCALE71; (2004)4SCC146
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 20th March, 1998.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:In pursuance of the power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the Colliery Control Order was framed. Under Clause 12A of the Colliery Control Order the Central Government could by Notification specify the authorities competent to allot quota of coal to any person or class of persons. Clause 12A further provides that every such authority shall allot coal subject to such instructions as the Central Government may issue from time to time.3. On 25th June, 1992 the Central Government issued a Notification specifying the Coal Controller ac the competent authority to allot coal. On 5th January, 1995 a Circular was issued by the Central Government specifying that Coal India Ltd. would give coal clearances/linkages to the new applicants up to 5,000 tones per month and applications for more than 5,000 tones per month were to be dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2004)ACC44; 2004ACJ1318; AIR2004SC2070; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)521; 2004(2)CTC552; 2004(2)JKJ17[SC]; JT2004(5)SC604; 2004(2)KLT351(SC); (2004)4MLJ94(SC); 2004(4)SCALE80; (2004)10SCC131
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.9334 of 2000.2. A common question of law centering around Sections 107 and 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 arises for decision in these two appeals.3. In Civil Appeal No. 2655 of 1999 Sham Prakash Sharma, the late husband of Mrs. Anuradha, the respondent, had taken a life insurance policy from the appellant - Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter, the LIC or Corporation, for short). The policy commenced with effect from 8.2.1986. The premium was payable every six months. For two years, the premium was paid. On 17.7.1988 Sham Prakash Sharma was at Bombay wherefrom he just disappeared, never to be traced our thereafter The respondent, Anuradha, lodged a first information report with the police. On 11th July, 1988, the LIC had sent a communication addressed to Sham Prakash Sharma and delivered at his residence informing that the insurance policy had lapsed for non-payment of premium. On 29.6.1996, the respondent approached the LIC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)ALT39(SC); 2004CriLJ2827; JT2004(4)SC242; 2004(4)SCALE27; (2004)9SCC751; 1994(2)SCC220
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The appellant, Dhananjoy Chatterjee was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 12.8.1991 of the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Alipore, who sentenced him to death for the main offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant filed a criminal appeal before the High Court of Calcutta and there was also a Reference made under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The death penalty imposed on the appellant was confirmed by the High Court and the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant thereafter filed a special leave petition. Leave was granted in the special leave petition, but the appeal was dismissed by this Court on 11.1.1994 and the death sentence imposed on the appellant was confirmed. The appellant preferred a review petition and the same was rejected on 20.1.1994. Thereupon, the appellant filed a mercy petition before the Governor of W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3781; 2004CriLJ3353; 2004(3)SCALE707; (2004)10SCC743; 2004(2)LC1094(SC)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The appellant, Pradeep Singh was tried along with another co-accused, Vikram Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. Both of them were found guilty by the Sessions Court. They filed separate appeals before the High Court of Rajasthan. The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the present appellant, Pradeep Singh. The judgment of the Division Bench is challenged before us.2. The prosecution case is that on 22-6-1992 at about 8 a.m. P.W. 8 Maniram, a Head Constable attached to the Hanumangarh Police Station, saw the dead body of a young person near Shiv Mandir cinema. He went to the Hanumangarh police station and gave information to P.W. 10 Govindram, the Sub-Inspector of Police. On the basis of the information given by P.W. 8, a case was registered under Section 302, I.P.C. and P.W. 10 immediately visited the place where the dead body had been found. He prepared the site plan and took photographs of the dead...
Tag this Judgment!