Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1859; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)908; 1999CriLJ2568; 1999(3)Crimes54(SC); 1999(2)CTC577; JT1999(4)SC1; 1999(II)OLR(SC)162; 1999(3)SCALE539; (1999)4SCC421; [1999]3SCR545
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This is a case where appellants have been convicted by the trial court of the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. They filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat and moved for suspension of sentence, but that was not allowed. At a later stage they again moved for suspension of sentence and that too was dismissed by the impugned order. Unfortunately, when they made a motion for having their appeal expedited that also was declined by the High Court on the premise that the High Court is having older appeals on the board.3. When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1856; 88(1999)CLT385(SC); JT1999(4)SC482; 1999(II)OLR(SC)166; 1999(3)SCALE576; (1999)4SCC500; [1999]3SCR538; 1999(2)LC1018(SC)
ORDERS.N. Phukan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 602 of 1978. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court after interpreting Section 4(1)(h) of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short the Act) did not agree with the findings of the Board of Revenue that under the above section possession of land by the person on date of vesting is necessary for the purpose of declaration as a Raiyat,2. Shortly stated facts are as follow:Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed an application for declaration as Raiyats under Section 4(1)(h) of the Act for Survey Plot Nos. 719, 915, 804, 805, 297, 266 and 957 in village Padampur where respondents reside. This village was part of the estate of Badagada and the estate was abolished by Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for short the Act of 1951) and the land vested in the Government free from all incumbrances w.e.f. 01.06.1953. In the above application for being declared as Raiyats, the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2005; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)921; 1999CriLJ2898; 1999(3)Crimes81(SC); JT1999(3)SC602; 1999(3)SCALE613; (1999)5SCC96; [1999]3SCR529; 1999(2)LC1046(SC)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Every father is the best protector of his own children- that is the order of human nature. But there had been freaks in the history of mankind when father became killer of his own child. This case tells the story of such a freak when Subhram the 33 year old son of Bhagirath was butchered by cutting the throat. As Subhram was congenitally blind perhaps the only solace in the eerie episode seems to be that the victim would not have had any idea of the physiognomy of his murderers. Bhagirath and his two nephews (Hanuman and Kheta) were convicted by the sessions court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the three were sentenced to imprisonment for life. But the High Court, on appeal by the three accused, acquitted Bhagirath and confirmed the conviction and sentence of his two nephews. State of Haryana has filed this appeal by special leave against the acquittal of Bhagirath.2. Backdrop of the prosecution story is the following:Bhagirath and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1969; 1999CriLJ2889; 1999(3)Crimes96(SC); JT1999(4)SC74; 1999(3)SCALE623; (1999)5SCC30; 1999(Supp)SCC30; [1999]3SCR519
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. These appeals relate to a case of mercenary killing. Though the principal target of the killers was one Ram Kishore Somani @ Ramu they could kill only his younger brother Ashok Somani, who, per chance was with his elder brother then, due to his jinxed destiny. Nevertheless they succeeded in brutally mangling the targeted person inflicting a lot of injuries on him, some of them near fatal. As he survived such injuries he appeared in the trial court to tell the tale.2. If the story is true, the intrigue was hatched, ironically, at the precincts of a court of law and its finale was staged on a public road near the Employment Exchange Office at Amravati (Maharashtra). Ten persons, in all, were charge-sheeted by the police in connection with the said case, out of which one Anil Chaudhary (PW.2) was granted pardon as he turned an approver. Four of the remaining alone were convicted and all the rest were acquitted by the trial court. The State appealed against the acquittal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1980; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)913; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)261; 1999CriLJ2894; 1999(3)Crimes60(SC); 1999(2)CTC503; JT1999(3)SC631; 1999(3)SCALE620; (1999)4SCC521; [1999]3SCR513; 199
G.B. Pattanaik, J. 1. The Union of India in this appeal has challenged the judgment dated 12.11.1993, of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1511 of 92. The respondent Himmat Singh Chahar, who was serving as a petty officer on Naval submarine 'Sankush' approached the Bombay High Court assailing the order passed against him in the Court Martial Proceedings and the High Court by the impugned judgment quashed the said order in the Court Martial Proceeding. In the Court-martial the respondent was found guilty of offence under Section 354 and was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months, and his services were terminated. Facts culminating in the aforesaid order of the High Court may be briefly stated as under.2. The respondent had joined the Indian Navy on 24.6.78 and in November 1990 he was a petty officer (Telegraphist) in the submarine and was thus away from his quarters on the shore. On 28.11.1990 one R.K. Sharma, another officer belonging to Navy came wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)9SCC208
S.Saghir Ahmed and; M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.1. Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has contended that under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 the petitioner had filed the claim which was disposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer with the finding that the petrol pump does not fall within the ridge area. It is contended by him that a notification under Section 20 has not yet been issued. That being so, the claim that the entire area is a reserved forest cannot be accepted unless a notification under Section 20 is produced before us which shall be done by the counsel for the opposite side within two weeks. Mr M.C. Mehta has, however, placed before us a notification dated 10-4-1980 by which the entire area was constituted as protected forest under Section 30 of the Forest Act. In this notification the southern boundary of the central ridge has been shown as Sardar Patel Road up to Dhaula Kuan Roundabout. This ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2126; 1999(3)ALLMR(SC)674; 1999(5)ALT26(SC); JT1999(4)SC469; 1999(3)SCALE636; (1999)5SCC62; [1999]3SCR462; 1999(2)LC1035(SC)
A.P. Misra, J. 1. The short question raised is: whether the Collector while exercising powers under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 340-A of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 framed under the Indian Stamp Act had the competence while fixing circle rates to enhance such rate by 20 per cent for the next year in question? The appellants, in other words, have challenged circular dated 29th November, 1991 which became effective from 1st December, 1991 under which the rate chargeable in Village Surajpur of revenue villages located in Tehsil Dadari area is fixed as under:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Prescribed rate on Prescribed rates on Road per sq.mt. road (beyond 100 Mts.) per sq.mt.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Surajpur Residential Plots 600.00 400.002. Surajpur Commercial Area Plots 750.00 300.003. Surajpur Commercial Plots 3000.00 2500.00-----------------------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1795; 1999(65)ECC5; 1999(111)ELT3(SC); JT1999(4)SC15; 1999(3)SCALE585; (1999)4SCC655
1. These Civil Appeals were admitted on 2.4.96 with a direction to post along with Civil Appeal Nos. 7916-7917 of 1995. When these appeals came up for final disposal on 16.2.99 they were delinked from the other appeals and the connected appeals were dismissed leaving the question of law open on the ground that the Tribunal followed its earlier common order in a batch of appeals and Civil Appeals filed against those orders were not prosecuted by the Revenue.2. Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, argued these appeals on merits and persuaded the Court to hand down an order on merits.3. We find from the order under appeal that these are not different from the other cases in the sense that the Tribunal has followed its earlier different orders in these appeals as well. Moreover, these appeals were admitted, as noticed already, to be heard along with other connected appeals. We do not find any good ground to pass order on merits in these appeals alone as it is on fact that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(245)ITR5; 2000(9)SCC532; 2000(163)CTR420; 2001(116)TAXMAN8
B.N. KIRPAL, J.BY THE COURTSpecial leave grantedAfter hearing counsel for the appellant, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to the High Court"1. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing investment allowance under section. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, on the excavator, which was used for excavation of earth at site ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the AO cannot verify which machinery was used for contract work in proceedings under s. 154 of the IT Act ?" *Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act is allowedNo costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(2)ALT(Cri)1; 1999CriLJ3124; JT1999(4)SC106; 1999(3)SCALE241; (1999)5SCC253; [1999]3SCR1
ORDER747. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court of the offences of Section 3(3), Section 3(4) and Section 5 of the TADA are set aside in respect of all those appellants who were found by the trial court guilty under the said counts.748. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court of the offences under Section 212 and 216 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 25(1-5) of the Arms Act, Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 12 of the passports Act, and Section 6(1-A) of the Wireless and Telegraph Act, 1933, in respect of those accused who were found guilty of those offences, are confirmed. If they have already undergone the period of sentence under those Counts it is for the jail authorities to release such of those against whom no other conviction and sentence exceeding the said period have been passed.749. The conviction for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code as against A-1 (N...
Tag this Judgment!