Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1000; 2006(12)SCALE321; 2006AIRSCW6197; (2007)1SCC(Cri)732; (2007)1Crimes181(SC); 2007(1)KCCRSN9.; (2006)12SCC306
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant and the deceased Meena Rani were married on 3.03.2002. She went to her parents' place on 3.07.2002. The appellant came to her parents' house which was situated at village Ghal Kalan to take her back on 7.07.2002. They started in the appellant's Maruti Car at about 7.30 p.m. She was allegedly wearing all her gold ornaments at that time. After about a couple of hours, a telephonic call was received at a Medical Store of a local Press Reporter Rakesh Kumar informing him that car of the appellant and his wife had met with an accident on the bridge of Bukan Wala and they were lying in an injured condition. The caller had allegedly informed that he would be leaving for the said place of accident and the mother of the appellant Amarjit Kaur should reach the same place. Upon receipt of the said information, Amarjit Kaur, her neighbour Kusum Lata wife of Rajinder Kumar and her son Deepak Kumar reached the place of occurrence and found the Maruti Car to be standing at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1019; 2006(12)SCALE354; 2007AIRSCW807; (2007)2SCC(Cri)567; (2007)1Crimes120(SC); 2007(1)KCCR481(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellants five in number were proceeded against and convicted for commission of an offence of murder of one Shivnandan Prasad at about 07.00 a.m. on 13.12.1999. The parties are residents of the same village.2. On 13.12.1999 at about 06.30 a.m., the deceased was milking a buffalo. His other family members including the wife of his brother (informant Krishna Deo Prasad-PW-7), nephew Sunil Prasad and others were brushing their teeth at the roof of their house. Brijnandan Prasad and others have their joint residential house at some distance from the house of the deceased. They allegedly came over the roof of their house armed with rifles and started brick-batting and abusing the brother of the informant alleging that they had burnt a heap of straw belonging to them. When Shivnandan Prasad went to the roof of the house, allegedly the appellants started firing. One of the bullets hit Shivnandan Prasad on his chest. An alarm was raised. The first informant reached near his b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC976; 2006(12)SCALE559
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing appellant's appeal questioning correctness of the order passed by a learned 7th Assistant District Judge at Alipore, 24, Parganas (South). By the judgment of the trial court the appellant and its functionaries were held to be liable to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- for harassment of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in this appeal and Rs.50,000/- for loss of his reputation. The High Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court.3. Filtering out unnecessary details the background facts are as follows:Respondent no.1 was an employee of the appellant No.1- Board and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') was lodged against him and others per alleged misconduct and commission of various offences. Initially, the respondent No.1 was placed under suspension for alleged a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC420; 2007CriLJ786; (2007)1GLR742(SC); 2007(I)OLR(SC)235; 2006(12)SCALE385; 2006AIRSCW6329; (2007)1Crimes194(SC); (2007)1SCC(Cri)702; 2007(1)KCCRSN10(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The appellant herein was a labourer. He is said to have committed a series of offences involving heinous crimes. He is involved also in a case of rape and murder of a minor girl Savita. She was sister of Shankar Bhursinh (complainant). He lodged a First Information Report on 1.07.1998 inter alia stating that he with a view to earn his livelihood came with his family to Karamsad town. He was staying in a shed opposite to Tirupati Petrol Pump. He was sleeping in that shed. He woke up at about 2 a.m. for answering the call of nature. At that time her sister was sleeping along with other family members. When he woke up again, he did not find Savita. It was raining on that night. Searches were made for her. On the next day morning, her dead body was found lying in the surrounding field belonging to Malabhai and Kanbhai. Her neck was tied with a frock which was worn by her. She was found to be dead. The blood was found to have been oozing out from her private part. The knick...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(5)CTC796; 2007(1)KLT273(SC); (2007)1MLJ630(SC); (2007)146PLR564; RLW2007(3)SC2007; 2006(12)SCALE649
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Extent of application of revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') falls for question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30.09.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) which is in the following terms:This Revision Petition is admitted, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the entire post arrears, by calculating the monthly rent as Rs. 12,650/-, fixed by the appellate authority from the date of fair rent control petition, named, 30.03.1992, which shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner shall also continue to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 12,650/- on or before 10th of every succeeding month.3. Having regard to the point involved in this matter, it is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in details. Suffice it to notice that Appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(12)SCALE479; (2006)13SCC516
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellants herein were prosecuted for commission of an offence under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping and murdering two children, Abhishek and Heena, aged six and eight years respectively, of one Kamal Kishore. They were sentenced to death. A reference was made to the High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appeals were preferred by Appellants also before the High Court. 2. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court while upholding the judgment and conviction opined that the case cannot be said to be a rarest of rare one meriting award of death penalty. 3. The children went to take private tuition in the house of one Pooja. They were supposed to come back by 6.30 p.m. As they did not return, Kamal Kishore went to her house. He was informed that the children had left her house at 6.15 p.m. The children were continued to be searched. He, however, came to know that one scooterist wearing trouser of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(10)SC586; 2006(12)SCALE516; (2007)2Crimes135; 2007(1)KCCR4(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant herein is before us having been convicted for alleged commission of an offence under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code and imposed with sentence of death. He was also convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default whereof to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Paras, deceased herein was aged about 5 years. He was a student in Coast Guard School. He went to the school on 3.08.2000. His parents are owner of a factory situated in Daman. The appellant admittedly was appointed as a driver by them and worked for about three months. At around 6.15 p.m. on the said date, a phone call was attended by Alpa, mother of the deceased. When she heard the caller, she started weeping at which point their neighbour Khimjibhai picked up the phone and from other end he was informed that the boy was in their custody....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(113)ECC314; 2006LC314(SC); 2006(204)ELT513(SC); 2006(12)SCALE303; 2008[12]STR104; 2006(2)LC1526(SC); (2009)20VST297(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants who had filed the writ petitions questioning correctness of the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the 'Tribunal') dealing with the applications filed for staying recovery of duty and penalty imposed pending disposal of the appeals before the Tribunal. Allegations against the appellants were to the effect that they were removing excisable goods clandestinely without payment of duty and without raising Central Excise invoices/bills under the guise of estimates/rough estimates to their front trading firms which they called 'houses' and consequently to the ultimate customer. Searches were conducted at the premises of manufacturing units and other connected concerns, through whom the goods were allegedly sold. During the search, incriminating documents were allegedly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR336]; 2006(12)SCALE293; 2007-I-LLJ-813; 2007(1)KCCR1(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants-Union of India and its functionaries. The orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (in short the 'CAT') in the Original Application No. 170 of 1997 and Review Application No. 32 of 2003 were upheld. The only issue which was raised by the Union of India was that CAT was not justified in holding that the order of dismissal was passed by an authority lower in rank than the appointing authority.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows:On 1.1.1990 a letter was issued to the respondent informing him that on successful completion of the course which included successful completion of practical training on division and on the respondent passing the prescribed Hindi test he may be offered an appointment in the temporary cadre on the regular scales of pay. Subse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR460]; JT2006(10)SC479; 2006(12)SCALE307
H.K. Sema, J.1. Civil Appeal Nos. 3174 and 3173 of 2006 are preferred by the pensioners against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 29.4.2005 in Writ Petition Nos. 24444- 24451/2001, 14913/2002 and 32527/2004. Civil appeal Nos. 3188, 3189 and 3190 of 2006 are preferred by the Union of India against the judgments and orders of the Delhi High Court dated 17.8.2005, 5.9.2005, 10.11.2005 and 3.8.2005 passed in W.P. Nos. 17745/2004, 16975/2005, 6831/2004, 4597/2003 respectively. 2. We have heard Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Mr. C.S. Rajan, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for different appellants/respondents. In all these appeals, the controversy relates to the scale of pay recommended by the 5th Pay Commission and corresponding acceptance of the Government by a Policy decision dated 30.9.1997 and Executive Instructions dated 17.12.1998 clarified by Executive Instructions dated 11.5.2001. We may briefly notice th...
Tag this Judgment!