Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against order dated 18th of August, 2006 of High Court of Judicature at Patna disposing of IA Nos. 5977/2005 and 5982/2005 arising out of MA No. 174/2001 and the order dated 23rd April, 2007 passed in the aforesaid appeal.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we dispose of these appeals in the following manner:i) In the event, the decretal amount in question is deposited within two months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to the High Court, the recovery of the said awarded money or if any execution proceedings have already been started for recovery of the same, shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal and the order dated 23rd of April, 2007 shall stand set aside. For a period of three months from today, there shall be an unconditional order of stay of recovery of the awarded money. ii) However, if the amount is not deposited within...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC913; JT2008(8)SC690; 2008(11)SCALE120; 2008AIRSCW8241; 2008(4)LH(SC)2929
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, while directing acquittal of the co-accused. Learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, had convicted both, the present appellant and Surjit Kaur for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and had sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. It is to be noted that Narinder Kaur had faced trial along with the appellant Baldev Singh and Surjit Kaur but was acquitted of the charges by the trial court.3. The case of the prosecution is as under:Satwant Kaur @ Bholi was the sister of Rachhpal Singh (PW-4) and was married with Baldev Singh accused on 8.6.1991. Within about a month of their marriage, differences cropped up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(8)SC684; 2008(11)SCALE113; 2008AIRSCW5715; 2008(4)Crimes45; 2008(11)SCALE113
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Government Appeal. In the said appeal challenge was to the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karvi, directing acquittal of the respondents-the accused 1 to 10 of the charged offences relatable to Sections 147, 148, 302, 325, 323 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The High Court while upholding the acquittal of the rest of the accused persons found the evidence cogent and credible so far as the present appellant is concerned and directed conviction for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court had rightly noticed that the appellant and the co- accused exercised right of private defence and, therefore, the High Court could not have held the appellant guilty. It is also submitted that when the evidence was found inadequate for rest of the accused persons, appellant should ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3259; 106(2008)CLT691(SC); 2008CriLJ4311; JT2008(9)SC148; 2008(11)SCALE108; (2008)8SCC270; 2008AIRSCW5512
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, upholding conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Fast Track Court, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 148, 452 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). In all, five persons faced trial. The appeal filed by four others was allowed and conviction in respect of each one of them was set aside. They were convicted in terms of Section 302 read with 149 IPC, 307 read with 149, 324/149, 148/452 and 323 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine with default stipulations and to suffer 10 years, 1 year, 2 years and 6 months imprisonment in respect of other offences.4. Background facts giving rise to the trial are as follows:Informant-Suresh Kumar (PW-10) submitted a written report (Ex.P-5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)903; JT2008(8)SC647; 2008(11)SCALE1
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Since the only question involved in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in reducing the sentence, as imposed by the High Court on the respondent, detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.3. The respondent faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 376(1) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') and Sections 324 and 452 IPC. For the first offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations. For the second offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. Similarly, for the last offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.4. He preferred an appeal before the High Court and the High Court, by the impugned order, held that since the respondent had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(11)SCALE170; (2008)8SCC134; (2009)11VatReporter33; (2008)16VST461(SC); 2008AIRSCW6384
Aftab Alam, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. All the three appeals arise from same or similar sets of facts and involve a common question of law. Hence, all the three appeals were taken up together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The dispute relates to demands raised by the prescribed authority in terms of Section 5(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 as the provision was in existence at the material time (Section 5 now stands deleted by Act 32 of 2005 with effect from 4.6.2005). The Prescribed Authority raised the impugned demands in view of the fact that the local authorities within which the respondents' cinema theatres were situate were upgraded during the period the three respondents had the permission to pay their taxes following the slab system as provided under Section 5 of the Act. The demands were, of course, raised long after the period for which permission was granted was over. The controversy in regard to the legal validi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Delay condoned. Substitution allowed.2. Leave granted.3. The appellants are the claimants under the Land Acquisition Act. The lands in question stood acquired for development of industrial Sector No. 58, Faridabad.4. The main controversy in the present case is that in the entire judgment of the reference court, the discussion relates to lands acquired for development of Industrial Sector No. 59 pursuant to the notification dated 10th June, 1988. There is no discussion in the context of Sector No. 58. In matter of valuation, courts are required to consider relevant instances. In the present case, the entire discussion by the Reference Court proceeds in the context of Section No. 59 and, therefore, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant herein that his claim cannot be decided on the basis of sale instances concerning the acquisition of the lands in industrial Sector No. 59. There is a First Appeal pending in the High Court but that First Appeal also r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)896; JT2008(13)SC622; 2008(11)SCALE128; 2008AIRSCW5791; 2008(4)LH(SC)2935
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondents 1 and 2. The appeal has been filed by the informant. The accused 1 and 2 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 404 and 201 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') There was another person described as A-3 who also faced trial alongwith them. The trial Court found that prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of A-1 and A-2 beyond reasonable doubt while directing acquittal of A-3. The conviction and the sentences imposed by the trial Court were as follows:A-1 and A-2 are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC.A-1 and A-2 are further sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)890; 2008(11)SCALE9
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Since, the only question involved in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was right in reducing the sentence, as imposed by the trial court on respondent, detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.3. Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, six months and six months respectively for the aforesaid three offences. Additionally, fine was imposed in each case with default stipulations.4. Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2002. By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed the sentence to be reduced to a period of five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence relatable to Section 376 IPC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(9)SC295; 2008(11)SCALE160; 2008AIRSCW5682
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel.2. This appeal is by the defendant in O.S. No. 232 of 1979 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Rajmundry. The said suit was filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking possession of suit property and mesne profits. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 13.9.1988 and the decree was affirmed by the High Court on 27.9.2006.3. The case of respondent-plaintiff in the plaint was that she is the owner of the suit schedule property (Survey No. 100 of Rajanagaram Village), having purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 10.4.1957 from the previous owners Sathyanarayana Rao and Suryaprakash Rao represented by their mother Varalakshmamma. She paid the entire consideration of Rs. 10000/- and obtained possession of the land from her vendors. The appellant-defendant, who is her close relative (son-in-law of her husband's brother) offered to manage the suit land by identifying suitable persoris to cultivate the said land. The s...
Tag this Judgment!