Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2004)ACC60; AIR2004SC3821; [2004(3)JCR144(SC)]; JT2004(1)SC413; 2004(5)SCALE371; (2004)6SCC440
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th October, 2000 dismissing the writ petition of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 31st December, 1999 issued by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.2. Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are transport operators who have been issued stage carriage permits by the State Transport Authority, Delhi under various schemes. Appellant No. 5 is an association of bus operators in Delhi, whose members have been granted permits under various schemes for upliftment of different sections of society.3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 represent the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Respondent No. 4 is a statutory corporation set up under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950.4. Respondent No. 4, Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was continuously making losses and found itself unabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3508; 2004(5)SCALE259; (2004)10SCC682
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Eleven accused were tried by the court of sessions, Muzaffarnagar, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 395, 397, 452 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. There were also charges against some of the accused under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. After the trial, the Sessions Judge convicted five accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They were also convicted under Sections 148 and 452 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Six accused were acquitted by the Sessions Court. The five accused, who were found guilty, were sentenced to death by the Sessions Court. These accused filed an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad and the State also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the other five accused. The appeal preferred by the convicted accused was dismissed. However, the State appeal filed against the acquittal of the five accused persons was partly allowed and appellant Satyendra was found guil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(9)SCALE38; (2004)6SCC71
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27th March, 2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition Nos. 326-327 of 2002 whereby the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 61 of 1998 allowing an appeal from an order of the trial court in Suit No. 63/97/B refusing to pass an order of interim injunction was set aside.3. Having regard to the order proposed to be passed by us, it is not necessary to delve deep into the factual matrix. Suffice it to state that the respondents herein filed a suit for injunction against the appellant claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs.'a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased, by way of permanent injunction, to restrain the defendants including their family members, agents, servants and labourers from raising any structure or construction in place of the demolished suit premises and from constructing anything above the ground floor of the stru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2294; 2004(2)BLJR1068; 2004CriLJ2527; JT2004(Suppl1)SC559; 2004(5)SCALE289; (2004)5SCC679
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Six persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 307 read with Section 34, 452 read with Section 34 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Appellant-Anil Sharma was sentenced to death. The others were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:Hare Ram Singh @ Manoj Singh (PW-6) who was the cousin of Sudhir Singh @ Bhoma (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lodged fardbayan. He claimed to be an injured in the occurrence in question which took place on 22.1.1999. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 6.45 A.M. on that day in Ward No. 2 of Jail Hospital in Birsa M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)1035; 2004(2)BLJR1085; 2004CriLJ2536; 2004(5)SCALE311; (2004)5SCC141
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Conviction of the accused-appellant was altered by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court from Section 302 read with Section 149 to Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Life imprisonment as awarded by the Trial Court was altered to 10 years imprisonment for the altered conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC. The Trial Court had not awarded any separate sentence for the other offences.2. Background facts alleged by the prosecution leading to the trial are essentially as follows:Hashim Khan (PW-1) lodged an FIR at about 1330 hours on 3.10.1977 in which the time of incident was stated to be 1300 hours on the same day. Distance of place of incident from police station was about one mile. As per FIR, PW-1, the complainant is the resident of village Lodhipur. The accused Chanda fired a shot at his uncle in the year 1975, a case was registered against him and that case was pending. Second time, in the year 1976...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)67; 2004CriLJ2825; 2004(5)SCALE285; (2004)10SCC715; 2004(2)LC1161(SC)
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellants herein were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC for having committed the murder of one Keshav and having caused injury to his brother Baburao (PW-1). The trial court found the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. It convicted Appellant Nos. 2 and 4 also for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC for which three months simple imprisonment was awarded.2. The appellants herein unsuccessfully challenged the said conviction and sentence before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, consequently they are before us in this appeal.3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:The appellants and the deceased and his family owned neighbouring lands in the Village Koyali, Tehsil Risod in Akola District of Maharashtra. There was some dispute in regard to the boundary b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3794; 2004CriLJ3342; I(2004)DMC823SC; 2004(5)SCALE318; (2004)10SCC612
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the first respondent herein and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants herein. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows :The first appellant herein was married to the daughter of the first respondent on 17.4.2000. Second appellant is the father of the first appellant. Both are residents of Bombay. The said marriage lasted hardly for 14 days and the estranged wife Dimple Jain started living separately. While the first appellant being a doctor was stationed in Bombay, after separation his wife, came to Chennai to her parents' house and started living there.4. The relationship between the two parties deteriorated with the first appellant filing a case against the first respondent alleging an offence under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3850; 2004(93)ECC705; 2004(5)SCALE322; (2004)5SCC151; 2004(2)LC1072(SC)
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. The Narcotic Control Bureau, Jodhpur has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur by which judgment the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent and his father filed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 155/94 whereby the trial court had convicted the appellant and his father of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act) and sentenced them to undergo 10 years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :On the basis of certain confidential information received by the officers of the department on 23.9.1994 a raiding party was organised under the supervision of the Assistant Director of the Bureau who incidentally was a Gazetted Officer. Said team saw the respondent and his father Murl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3666; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)333; 2004CriLJ3034; 2004(5)SCALE249; (2004)6SCC59
B.P. Singh, J. 1. The State of West Bengal has preferred this appeal by Special Leave impugning the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dated 21st February, 1997 in Criminal Revision No.2578 of 1994 whereby the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents herein holding that the 3rd Special Court, Calcutta appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 for trying offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) had no jurisdiction to try the respondents for the alleged offences after coming into force of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988) w.e.f. 9th September, 1998. In substance, it held that though the said court was earlier empowered to try offences under the Act of 1947, since no such jurisdiction was conferred upon it afresh after coming into force of the Act of 1988, which repealed the Act of 1947, it had no jurisdiction to try such offences...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3674; 2004(5)SCALE297; (2004)5SCC672
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal arises from a dispute between two clans of two villages in the Hill District of Mokokchung in North-Eastern State of Nagaland. The dispute between the two clans of the two villages is concerning the access to the source of water and the ownership of the suit land which is described as 'Jakoktsuba' by the appellants and 'Mezenteraba' by the respondents. Without going into greater details, it is sufficient to state that the appellants herein represent Sai (Soya) clan of Longkhum village and the respondents represent the Pongen clan of Mangmetong village.2. The dispute to the water source and the land arose sometime in the year 1985 as the boundary pillars of the two villages were alleged to have been disturbed by some villagers.3. At the outset, it may be stated that the civil rights to the water source and the land in the Hill District of Nagaland comprising the two villages mentioned above are not governed by any codified law contained in Code of Ci...
Tag this Judgment!