Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC923; [2009(1)JCR124(SC)]; (2009)1SCC554; 2008AIRSCW8254
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). The respondent No. 1 filed a petition for quashing the prosecution against her in PRC No. 1/05 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. The High Court by the impugned order allowed the application quashing the proceedings.3. A complaint was filed by the appellant who is father of Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') who was a highly qualified person and was employed in Kendriya Vidhyalaya at Machilipatnam. The allegations in the complaint were that his marriage was performed with the accused-respondent No. 1 on 29.5.2004 at Tirupathi. It is alleged that while the accused was fair in complexion, the deceased was not good looking. It is stated that while the family of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(13)SC493
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal was directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short `the DP Act'). The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the first offence and seven years' for the second offence and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act.3. The factual background is not necessary to be dealt with in detail as learned Counsel for the appellant's primary stand was that the appeal was disposed of ex-parte and, he had no notice of transfer of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(15)SCALE620; (2009)2SCC164
D.K. Jain, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against two common orders, dated 21st November, 2005, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. Nos. 1135 and 1136 of 2005. By the impugned orders, the High Court has allowed the appeals, preferred by the Indian Airlines Limited, the sole respondent in this appeal, against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in the miscellaneous application filed by the first appellant herein, seeking clarification of the final judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 11th October, 2004. The Division Bench has held that after disposal of the writ petitions, miscellaneous application was not maintainable and, hence order dated 4th March, 2005 on the said application was without jurisdiction.3. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to recapitulate the background facts, stated in detail by the learned Single Judge. These are as follows:The appellants were appointed as Field Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard2. Leave granted.3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. An appeal was filed and the leaned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Bettiah, West Champaran affirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision filed was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that there was no scope for interference. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution version has not been established. There were several infirmities which the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1757; 2009AIRSCW1322; 2009(3)LHSC1958; 2009(3)KCCRSN85
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `accused') who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC').2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:The accused is a resident of Chockalingapuram. The deceased Mariammal was his wife. Their marriage had taken place ten years prior to the occurrence. (The occurrence was on 29.5.1990) The deceased and the accused have a son aged about eight years. The deceased was employed in a private establishment near her village. PW2 is her co-worker. The accused came to know that his wife was having an illicit affair with PW 2. Therefore, he warned his wife. However, the deceased continued her affair with PW2. Two weeks prior to the occurrence, on coming to know that the deceased and PW2 are happily spending their time in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1480; 2008(15)SCALE611
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court summarily dismissing the application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Code'). Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `Act'). The allegation was that the respondent-accused demanded Rs. 1500/- by way of illegal gratification for recording mutation on the basis of purchase made by the complainant by a registered sale-deed. On conclusions of Trial Court in Sessions Case No.49 of 1996, learned Special Judge, Jagadhri, held that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, but has failed to prove offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act. Appellant moved the High Court in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code questioning correctness of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The accused appellant faced trial for the alleged commission of the aforesaid offence. The learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam convicted the appellant as aforenoted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. By judgment dated 22.12.1998 the appeal filed before the High Court was dismissed. The matter was carried before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2000 which was disposed of by order dated 31st July, 2000. This court found that the manner of disposal of the appeal left much to be desired. It was pointed out by this Court that four defence witnesses were examined to rebut the presumption created under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1452; JT2009(1)SC532
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court granting bail to Respondents 2 and 3 who were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the `Arms Act'). Two other persons namely, Nirmal Singh and Shiv Janam Singh were also convicted in terms of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Four other accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court. Respondents 2 and 3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2004 before the Patna High Court in which the present appellant, the informant has also appeared. Though prayers for bail were earlier made during the pendency of the appeal, they were rejected on 23.3.2004 and 24.8.2006. However, liberty was granted in the latter case to renew the prayer for bail after six months. It was again made on 14.3.2007 which has been allowed by the impugned order.3. According t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1461; JT2009(1)SC55; 2009AIRSCW936; 2008(16)SCR769; 2008(15)Scale205; 2009(1)JT55
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 1988, confirming the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `IPC').2. As many as four accused came to be tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1987. These persons were Babasaheb Apparao Patil - Accused No. 1, Tanaji Manikrao Patil - Accused No. 2, Appasha Dharmarao Patil - Accused No. 3 and Prakash Limbanna Koli - Accused No. 4. The Trial Court convicted all the accused for the said offence and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, with default stipulation. All the convicts preferred an appeal to the High Court. Although accused No. 2 and 4 expired during the pendency of the appeal, yet the High Court dealt with their appeals as well. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(1)SC104
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. A Judgment by the High Court allowing a Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge of Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter called `the Appellate Tribunal' for short) is in challenge before us. The High Court while allowing the Revision, recognized the rights of the respondents herein as the protected tenants and further held that they become absolute owners of the land by purchasing the land in respect of which they were protected tenants. As a sequel, the High Court held that the land held by them could not be declared as a surplus land and could not be distributed as such. Before we approach the disputed questions, a factual background would be necessary.2. Five respondents, namely, (1) Shri T. Yadagiri Reddy, (2) Shri T. Bal Reddy, (3) Shri T. Janardhan Reddy, (4) Shri T. Mohan Reddy, (5) Shri T. Satyanarayana Reddy are the sons of Late Shri T. Papi Reddy. According to them, the s...
Tag this Judgment!