Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This is a State appeal by special leave against the judgment dated 20.3.2001 of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 1988 acquitting the respondent Kalyan Singh (Accused No. 1) by giving him the benefit of doubt.2. The prosecution case in brief is that there was enmity between Balbir Singh, father of respondent and Jagdish (PW12) on account of Jagdish defeating Balbir Singh in the Sarpanch elections. On 18.3.1984, a day after the Holi festival, Jagdish as Sarpanch, invited the villagers for playing Faag at Panchayat Bhawan. One Barar, a member of Jagdish's group, was playing Dholak. Balbir Singh came there and tried to snatch the Dholak from Barar. Jagdish objected to Balbir trying to play Dholak at Faag function organized by him and tried to pull the Dholak. In the meanwhile, Kalyan Singh, son of Balbir came there armed with a gun. Balbir exhorted him to kill Jagdish. Kalyan Singh fired at Jagdish causing injury on the hip of Jagdish. Jagdish fired back with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2008)BC523(SC); 2008(4)MPHT339(SC); 2008(10)SCALE654; 2008(8)SCC536; (2008)3SCC(Cri)558; 2008(5)LH(SC)3201; 2008(4)KCCR2511; 2008(8)SCC536; (2008)3SCC(Cri)558; 2008(5)LH(SC)3201; 2008(4)KCCR2511
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The complainant in a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`Act' for short), challenges in this appeal by special leave, the order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition No.1737 of 2001 holding that the complaint signed by a Power of Attorney holder was not maintainable.2. The appellant - complainant filed a complaint dated 2.4.1996 against respondents 2 to 4 herein (namely M/s Speciality Aqua Ventures Ltd, its Managing Director and Chairman arrayed as accused 1, 2 and 3) alleging that a cheque for Rs.12,40,000/- issued by the third respondent (on behalf of respondents 2 to 4) was dishonoured. Respondents 2 and 4 filed an application seeking discharge. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 17.12.1998. The Revision filed by them against the order of the learned Magistrate was rejected by the Sessions Court on 12.2.2001. Thereafter, the fourth respondent he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3198; JT2008(11)SC106; (2008)7SCC690
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This appeal was filed challenging the correctness of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court. The appellant-Hari Prasad Chhopolia was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 135(b)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the `Customs Act') and Section 85 (ii), (iii), (viii) and (ix) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (in short the `Gold Act') by the trial Court. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 135(b)(1) of the Customs Act while upholding the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Gold Act. Leave was granted by this Court by order dated 17.1.2002. The matter was listed for hearing on 7.6.2007 when none appeared for the appellant. The matter was adjourned to 12.6.2007 when it was mentioned that the appellant-Hari Prasad Chhapolia has died. Learned Counsel for the appellant wanted to take instructions and, therefore, the matter was dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2017; 2008CriLJ3184; JT2008(11)SC101; 2008(9)SCALE432; (2008)11SCC79; 2008(2)LC965(SC); 2008AIRSCW4251; 2008(3)Crimes52; 2008(4)Supreme547; 2008(4)LH(SC)2372
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The co-accused persons who were similarly convicted were acquitted by the High Court.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Jarnail Singh (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') and his wife Nasib Kaur immigrated to Canada about 12 years earlier but had both returned to Kotla about two months before Jarnail Singh's murder on April 10, 2001. Pala Singh (PW 7) was deceased's brother in law being the husband of Nasib Kaur's sister. He also belonged to Kotla. Jarnail Singh lived in his house in the fields, about half a kilometre from the village, on the passage leading to Baghapurana. According to Pala Singh, he and Jarnail Singh used to sleep at night at Jarnail Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2918; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)166; JT2008(8)SC167; 2008(9)SCALE758; (2008)8SCC333; 2008(3)ShimLC254; 2008AIRSCW4902; (2008)3SCC(Cri)490
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 207/2001 by Order dated 7.12.2001.3. The background facts in nutshell are as under:The respondent had been granted license for a 315 Bore Rifle. The It. Governor, Delhi upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (licensing) Delhi, in Appeal in terms of Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (In short the Act). The Deputy Commissioner had directed cancellation of license on the ground that the respondent who was working as a Constable was involved in criminal offence and therefore, it was not in the interest of justices to continue currency of the license granted to him, Therefore, it was cancelled. The appeal before the It, Governor, as noted above, did not bring any relief to the appellant. The High Court was moved thereafter.4. The High Court noted factual background as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3764(SC); 2008(56)BLJR2317; (2009)1CALLT21(SC); JT2008(8)SC317; 2008(3)SLJ209(SC)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether a Tribunal established under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short `the Act') can review its decision on the basis of subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger bench or any superior Court or on the basis of subsequent event/development is the question which arises for determination of this appeal filed by the State of West Bengal and others against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the said High Court declined to interfere with order dated 25.9.2001 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal') in R.A. No. 26 of 1998.2. The facts necessary for deciding the aforementioned question are as under:(i) Respondents Kamal Sengupta and Narayan Chandra Ghosh appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the West Bengal Public Service Commission in 1973 for recruitment to West Bengal Civil Services (Executive) and other Allied Services. They were declared successful an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)405; 2008(56)BLJR2244; 2008(9)SCALE415; (2008)6SCC772; 2008(2)LC757(SC); 2008AIRSCW4288; 2008(6)SCC772; (2008)3SCC(Cri)133; 2008(3)Crimes24; 2008(3)AICLR618; 2008(4)Supreme497; 2008(4)LH(SC)2334
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (in short the `Act') and sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation. Two other persons faced trial alongwith the appellant for offences punishable under Section 13 read with Section 14 of the Act. While co- accused Bagwan Sahai Sain acquitted, the other accused Smt. Sunita alias Sonu alias Nagma convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:SHO Vidhadhar Nagar, Jaipur acting upon the information of informant on 13.1.2004, the then SHO Richpal Singh alongwith Superintendent of Police reached at Vidhyadhar Nagar bus stand No. 15 and v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2620; 2008(3)AWC3176(SC); (2008)3CompLJ409(SC); III(2008)CPJ6(SC); (2008)8MLJ141(SC); 2008(9)SCALE105; (2008)10SCC626
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are filed against the common order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ('Commission' for short) allowing in part OP No. 45 of 1997 and OP No. 49 of 1997. OP No. 45 of 1997 was filed by M/s Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and its partner Rajender Kumar Jain (respondents 1 and 2 in CA No. 4306/2003). OP No. 49 of 1997 was filed by M/s Ratan Chand Deep Chand and its two partners (respondents 1 to 3 in CA No. 4307/2003).2. As the ranks of parties differ in the two appeals and as some parties were given up before the Commission, for convenience, we will also refer to the parties as follows : New India Assurance Co. Ltd., as `Appellant' or `Insurer'; M/s Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and its partners (Respondents 1 & 2 in the first matter) and M/s Ratan Chand Deep Chand and its partners (Respondents 1 to 3 in the second matter) as the `complainants'; M/s Niranjan Ship...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3188; (2008)11SCC373; 2008AIRSCW4255; 2008(3)Crimes1; 2008(3)AICLR562; 2008(4)Supreme425; 2008(4)LH(SC)2262
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. One Shankar Prasad Ghosh had filed the present appeal before this Court questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court. By a common judgment the learned Special Judge (CBI), South Bihar, Patna had found each of the accused persons guilty of offence punishable under Sections 409, 477A read with Section 34, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). It also found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 4(1)(c) and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the `Act'). Various custodial sentences and fine were imposed. The judgment of the Special Judge was assailed in appeal before the High Court which dismissed the appeal. The High Court upheld the conviction but altered the sentences to the period already undergone. The fine amount was, however, maintained alongwith default stipulation.2. In this case leave was granted on 20.4.1998...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2574; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)387; 2008(56)BLJR2068; 2008CriLJ3490; 2008(9)SCALE437; (2008)7SCC341; 2008(2)LC791(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). But the sentence of seven years as was imposed by the trial court i.e. the Court of Session Judge, Rajnandgaon was reduced to five years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Cr.P.C.'). It was held that in case the fine is not paid within the stipulated time, custodial sentence of seven years as imposed by the trial court shall be maintained.2. According to prosecution in the morning of 10th June, 1988 the accused had taken the advantage of the helplessness of the victim and committed rape on her. First Information Report was lodged around 11 A.M., and she was sent for medical examination. The accused after his arrest on 12th June, 1988 was sent for medical...
Tag this Judgment!