Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. The appellant – Kashinath Mondal was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arambagh, Hooghly in S.T. Case No.66 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for one year. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer RI for two years. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution, on the night of 30/10/1997, complainant - Tarak Chandra Mondal was sleeping in his house. His house has ground plus one floor. There are two rooms on the first floor of the said house. Out of the two rooms, one room was under the occupation of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. Dattu, J.1) Delay Condoned and Leave granted in SLP(Crl.) No. ....… of 2012 (Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.23190 of 2011).2) Since both Criminal appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court, we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment.3) These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal No. 1185 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2006, dated 16.06.2009, whereby and where under, the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal of accused Nos. A1, A15, A16, A21 and confirmed the order of conviction of accused Nos. A13 and A14 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2002. The appellants are convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.4) The facts of the case, in brief, as put forth by the prosecution are:- Shri. Bhimappa Biradar (deceased), the father of the Complainant had long standing enmity with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Aftab Alam, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is when does the payment of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter the Act) become due and consequently what is the point in time from which interest would be payable on the amount of compensation as provided under section 4-A (3) of the Act.3. In this case, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ernakulam, by his order dated November 26, 2008 in WCC No.67 of 2006 directed for payment of simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident on July 12, 2006. The appellant’s appeal (MFA No.172 of 2009) against the order of the Commissioner was dismissed by the Kerala High Court by order dated July 22, 2009 as barred by limitation. Against the order of the High Court the appellant filed the special leave petition (giving rise to this appeal) in which notice was issued “limited to the interest”.4. Mr. Mehra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant (Syed Ahmed) was acquitted by the Trial Court of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The acquittal was set aside by the High Court and he is aggrieved thereby. We are in agreement with the order of conviction handed down by the High Court. We are not in agreement with the sentence awarded, but prefer to let the matter rest. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.2. The facts:Nagaraja @ Nagarajegowda (PW1) and his father, Thimmegowda (PW4) are owners of some land. On 7th June, 1993 they had a boundary dispute with their immediate neighbour, Channakeshavegowda which resulted in their being assaulted by him and others. Thimmegowda then lodged a complaint on the same day with the Konanur Police Station in this regard.3. According to Syed Ahmed (a police officer in the Konanur Police Station), the complaint was inquired into by S.C. Rangasetty (PW7). According to Nagaraja, illegal gratifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Aftab Alam, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No.4, Rajeswar Panda filed an appeal before the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, stating that he was appointed as a lecturer in History in Sushree Devi Women’s College, Aul, Kendrapara after due selection but he was not allowed to discharge his duties because the Governing Body of the College tried to accommodate the appellant in his place. The appeal was disposed of by the Director by an ex parte order vide office order No.2A-9-07-III: 30092 dated July 23, 2008 holding that the action of the General Body in prohibiting the applicant (respondent No.4 in the present appeal) from discharging his duties was invalid and illegal and requested the Secretary of the Governing Body to forthwith allow respondent No.4 to perform his duties as a lecturer in the college.3. The Governing Body filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.12317 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the Director before the Orissa High Court. On behalf of the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
O R D E RALTAMAS KABIR, J.1. On 6th July, 2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No.657 of 1995 filed by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resources Policy was disposed of by this Court. I.A. No.61 of 2012 which had been filed by M/s Best Oasis Ltd. on 9th May, 2012, and I.A. No.62 of 2012 filed by Gopal Krishna on 18th June, 2012, were heard separately since in the said applications relief was prayed for in respect of a specific ship named “Oriental Nicety” (formerly known as Exxon Valdez), which had entered into Indian territorial waters and had sought the permission of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board and the Gujarat Maritime Board to allow the ship to beach for the purpose of dismantling. Such relief would, of course, be subject to compliance with all the formalities as required by the judgments and orders passed by this Court on 14th October, 2003, 6th September, 2007 and 11th September, 2007 in the Writ Petition. The Applicant, M/s Best Oasis Ltd. is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
O R D E RFakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla,J.1. Leave granted.At the very threshold, we are confronted with a question as to which of the judgments which have taken conflicting views have to be followed in the matter of termination of a Constable in the Police Department, who concealed certain relevant facts which he was called upon to disclose after his selection was finalized and after order of appointment was issued by placing him on probation.2. The brief facts of the case are; the appellant applied for the post of Constable pursuant to which he participated in the physical test held in the month of October, 2006. He having cleared the physical test was permitted to appear in the written examination which was held on 5.11.2006. Having come out successful in the written test also, he participated in the interview held in the month of November, 2006. After a subsequent medical examination, the appellant, along with others was declared fit and was sent for training.3. At the time of co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
JUDGMENTR.M. LODHA, J.Introduction1. This group of six appeals occupied considerable judicial time. These matters were heard on ten days between November 2, 2011 and November 29, 2011. Although the facts differ from one another in some respects but since fundamental issues appeared to be common and all these matters arise from a common judgment dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, we have heard all these matters together which are being disposed of by this common judgment.Prayers2. The prayers in the writ petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court also differ. However, principally the reliefs prayed for by the appellants in their writ petitions were for quashing (i) the decision of the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand contained in the letter dated September 13, 2005 whereby the State Government sought to withdraw the recommendation for grant of mining lease made in favour of the appellants in the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
JUDGMENTR.M. LODHA, J.1. The appellants are in appeal, by special leave, against the judgment and order dated December 12, 2007 passed by the Allahabad High Court whereby the Division Bench of that Court quashed the licence issued to them by respondent no. 2 – Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar – for holding private cattle market in Village Gujjarpur Taparana at Khasra No. 2478 on Tuesdays for the period October 23, 2007 till March 31, 2008 and any subsequent order for the above purpose and directed the Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar to hear the present respondent nos. 3 and 4 and the present appellants and decide the matter afresh.2. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of Khasra No. 637 situate in village Kheri Karamu Pargana, Tehsil Shamli, Distt. Muzaffarnagar. They were granted licence by the Zila Panchayat, Muzaffarnagar to hold private cattle market at the above place on Tuesdays on payment of fixed fee. The licence issued to respondent nos. 3 and 4 has been renewed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. Accused No.1 is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.564 of 2006 dated 24.4.2008. By the judgment of the trial Court dated 25 & 28.11.2005 the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment apart from imposition of fine along with accused No.2 for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 read with Section 34, IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/-each was also imposed and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment in custody. Both the accused preferred appeals before the High Court and the appeal preferred by accused No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.563 of 2006 was allowed and he was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 302 and 201, IPC while the appellants appeal came to be dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Sessions Ju...
Tag this Judgment!