Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3800; JT2004(Suppl1)SC443; 2004(5)SCALE1; (2004)4SCC714; 2004(3)SLJ175(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION:1. A short but interesting question as regard interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant provisions of Legal Remembrancer's Manual relating to appointment and renewal of term of the District Government Counsel is in question in this batch of appeals which arise out of various judgments and orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. Nos. 34064, 19513, 34074, 26613, 40945, 41178, 5665, 41180, 5667 of 1998, 9809 of 1992, 9203 of 1998, 3100, 3102 of 1999 and 6754 of 1998.FACTUAL BACKDROP:2. The State of Uttar Pradesh appoints District Government Counsel (DGC) for civil, criminal and revenue courts in terms of the Legal Remembrancer Manual.3. Appointment of Public Prosecutor is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The State of Uttar Pradesh, however, amended Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in terms whereof the requirements to consult the High Court for appointment of Public Prosecutions for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2853; 2004(94)ECC199; JT2004(5)SC383; 2004(2)KLT1022(SC); 2004(5)SCALE754; (2004)5SCC128
ORDER1. The appellant was found guilty by the Special Judge, Vadakara for the offense punishable under Section 21 of NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default R.1; for one year. He challenged his conviction and sentence and this appeal was rejected by the High Court. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal.2. The prosecution case was that on 24.1.1997 P.W.1, who is Circle Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu, found the appellant on a public road on the western side of Beach Hospital. PW-1 Circle Inspector had prior information about the sale of brown sugar by some persons in the Beach road and he recorded that statement and went to that place. Pws.2 and 3 were also present along with PW-1. When this police party went there, the appellant was standing on a foot path and PW-1 questioned him and told that he suspected that the appellant must have been carrying some narcotic drug. PW-1 told the appellant that he has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)1015; 2004CriLJ3834; 2004(94)ECC130; 2004(5)SCALE780; (2004)5SCC230
ORDER1. The appellants in these two appeals were tried by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Madurai. Both of them were found guilty of offences under Section 3(c) read with Section 20(b)(2) of the NDPS Act. PW-7 the Sub-Inspector, Thirumangalam Police Station got information that narcotic drug was being sold at some places and he recorded information and sent the same to the superior officer, and he along with PW-8 went to the place and found that appellant Muniyandi and one Kannan and PW-7 told them that they are to be searched. The search was conducted and each one of them was having one kg. of 'Hashish'. On the basis of the information furnished by them, the police party went to Muthudevanpatti and found out the appellant Jeevanantham. He was searched after complying with Section 50 of the Act and found to be in possession of 2 kgs. of 'Hashish'. The appellants were found guilty by the Special Judge and they filed an appeal against the conviction. Appellant Muniyandi and Jeevanantham fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3513; [2004(102)FLR177]; JT2004(5)SC342; 2004(4)SCALE814; (2004)4SCC748; (2004)3UPLBEC2253
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.Ps.2. The State of U.P. is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 8.2.1999 whereby and whereunder the order of the State Government refusing to renew the term of the District Government Counsel has been set aside.3. The respondents in these ten appeals as also 24 other persons similarly situated filed writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court questioning the validity of the orders passed by the appellant herein refusing to renew their term as District Government Counsel (Criminal).4. The writ petitioners who were appointed as District Government Counsel on different dates inter alia contended in their respective writ petitions that the State of U.P. acted arbitrarily in not renewing their term as their performance had been found to be satisfactory both by the District Officer as well as the District Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)721; 2004(2)AWC1946(SC); 2004(52)BLJR1146; 2004(3)CTC399; 111(2004)DLT244(SC); I(2004)DMC652SC; [2004(3)JCR206(SC)]; 2004(4)SCALE822; (2004)9SCC617
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also perused the counter affidavits and rejoinders along with the written submissions filed by the parties.3. The present appeal arises out of an interim order dated 11.1.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in the course of proceedings Instituted by the present appellant claiming to be the second wife of the respondent for grant of maintenance to her under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act [for short the Act]. The learned Single Judge on the original side of the High Court in the pending proceeding under the Act has by order dated 11.1.2002 granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the wife.4. The wife appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court. By order dated 25.7.2003 which is the subject matter of this appeal, the interim maintenance has been increased to Rs. 700/- per month. Not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3623; [2004]121CompCas8(SC); 2004CriLJ3042; 2004(5)SCALE157; (2004)12SCC90
ORDER1. The appellant herein was tried for offences punishable under Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum. He was found guilty by the Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years. The appellant filed an appeal before the Sessions Court challenging his conviction and sentence. The appellate Court converted there conviction of the appellant from Section 420 IPC to a conviction under Section 420/109 IPC, however the sentence was maintained and appellant filed a revision before the High Court, though his revision petition was dismissed, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.2. The appellant was a businessman in Jamshedpur. On 26-5-1972, one Loknath Acharya wanted to open a current account with the Central Bank at Jamshedpur. The appellant being holder of a current account ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD113(SC); 2004(3)AWC2221(SC); 2004(77)DRJ314; [2004(3)JCR172(SC)]; JT2004(Suppl1)SC359; 2004(4)SCALE799; (2004)5SCC795; (2004)2UPLBEC2009
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The appellant-society calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby it was held that respondents 1 to 3 were not defaulters and, therefore, demands raised against them for the period prior to 4th August, 1984 were unsustainable. Respondents nos. 1 to 3 were the writ petitioners nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition filed by them before the High Court. There was further direction given by the High Court that there may have been many members to whom similar demands have been sent. They were also entitled to refund of any payment taken by the society from them.2. Writ application was filed by the respondents with prayer to quash the order dated 1.2.2003 issued by the Election Officer of the appellant-society and for setting aside the orders dated 23.1.2003 passed by him and for a direction for carrying out fresh inquiry regarding defaulters. They had filed nomination for the post of President, Member and Vice-Presiden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)1002; 2004CriLJ2109; JT2004(Suppl1)SC189; 2004(4)SCALE804; (2004)9SCC699
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. Respondent herein was charged of an offence' punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, M.P. The trial court found him guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years. In appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the said conviction and sentence. It is against the said judgment of the High Court Under Section 376(2)(F) the State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal before us. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :Complainant Manbai was residing with family at Kaktipara within the jurisdiction of Rajhara Police Station. Her family consisted of her husband, 2 sons aged 12 and 6 years and a daughter aged about 8 years. It is stated that on 6.3.1990 her husband had gone out of station and at about 4 p.m. when she had gone to work as a labo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3992; 2004(4)ALD35(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)916; 2004(2)AWC2033(SC); 2005(1)BomCR413; 2004(2)KLT649(SC); 2004(5)SCALE102; (2004)6SCC378; 2004SARCivil553
S.B. SINHA, J : Leave granted. The short question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.7.2001 in C.R.P. No. 2003 of 1998-B passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam is as to whether on restoration of a suit an order of injunction passed is automatically revived or not. An order of injunction can be passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an order can also be passed by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in the event the prayer for grant of injunction does not fall within the scope of Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 thereof. An order of injunction can be granted by the Court only when there exists any power therefor. In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das [(1994) 4 SCC 225] this Court has held that having regard to the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer courts do not have any power to issue injunction. The jurisdiction to issue a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(93)ECC441; 2004(167)ELT20(SC); 2004(4)SCALE820; (2004)4SCC481
S.N. Variava, J.1. These Appeals are against the Judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT) dated 1st May, 1998.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants manufacture, amongst other things, Hexiprep, Hexiscrub (Surgiscrub) and Haxiaque. They classified these items under Tariff Item 3003.10 and paid duty under Notification No. 29/88- CE dated 1st March, 1988. Eight show-cause-notices were issued to them calling upon them to show cause as to why the products should not be classified under Tariff Item 38.08. The Adjudicating Authority then upheld the classification as proposed in the show-cause-notices. The Appeal filed by the Appellants to CEGAT has been dismissed by the impugned Judgment.3. The three products of the Appellants were examined by the Chemical Examiner who opined that they contained Chloral hex dine gluconate solution BP, which had therapeutic properties. The Chemical Examiner also opined that they were used as dis...
Tag this Judgment!