Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2910; 2009CriLJ3944; JT2009(7)SC88; 2009(8)SCALE824; 2009(7)LC3399(SC); 2009AIRSCW4185; AIR2009SC2129; 2009(4)LHSC2182
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The appellant has preferred these appeals against the Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1613 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 1461 of 1998 whereby the High Court altered the judgment of conviction against the appellant, recorded under Section 324 IPC by the Sessions Court, Guntur in Sessions Case No. 274 of 1976. The High Court while setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that the deceased was married to the appellant in the year 1994 and led marital life for about 1 = years and gave birth to a daughter in 1995. It is alleged that even while living with his wife the accused developed illegal intimacy with other women and was found flirting with them and some times he used to bring t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(9)SCALE9
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as the respondents.3. The High Court of Delhi by the impugned order dt.29.05.2009 stayed the operation of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge granting injunction in favour of the appellants on 16.12.2008 which was subsequently made absolute by the order dt.09.04.2009.4. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was on caveat. The High Court did not grant any time to file counter. The appellants had the benefit of injunction in its favour eversince 16.12.2008. In our considered opinion, the High Court ought not to have suspended the operation of injunction order even at the stage of admission of F.A.O.5. In such circumstances, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned order. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. We, however, request the High Court to dispose of the appeal without being influenced by the interim order granted on 29.05.2009. The appeal is accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2833(SC); JT2009(14)SC233; 2009(8)SCALE782:2009(6)LHSC4007
Aftab Alam, J.1. This appeal by special leave is at the instance of a number of appellants who, more than eleven years ago, had done a term of apprenticeship in different trades with the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961. On completion of the period of apprenticeship they claimed absorption as Junior Engineers and on different posts of Operating Staff on the basis of their apprentice training in the respective trades suitable for the posts. The Board did not accede to their claim and instead issued an advertisement on October 17, 1998 inviting applications for filling-up the vacancies of Junior Engineers, Sub-station Officers, Fitters, Draftsman Mechanical, Machinists, Lineman, Plumbers, Instrument Mechanic, Wireman, Diesel Mechanic, Boiler Operators, Electricians and similar other posts. The appellants moved the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction in their favour and asking the Board to consider them for appointment on the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2921; 2009(7)LC3427(SC):2009(4)LHSC2190
Aftab Alam, J.1. The two respondents Shah Alam and Mazzum Haq were held guilty of illegally possessing 100 grams of heroin each and were accordingly convicted by the trial court under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. They were acquitted of the other charge under Section 8 read with Section 29 of the Act. In appeal, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial court and acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section 8/21 of the Act.2. Against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Allahabad High Court the Union of India has come in appeal by special leave.3. The recovery of heroin from the two respondents was made on August 5, 1994. They were convicted and sentenced by the trial court ...
Tag this Judgment!