L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Sunil Mehta & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

3. A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed by respondent No.2-Company before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. The Magistrate upon examination of the complaint directed an enquiry in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the jurisdictional police station. The report received from the police suggested that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature in which criminal proceedings were out of place. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was not, however, satisfied with the police enquiry and the conclusion, and hence conducted an enquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and issued process against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 406 read with 114 IPC.

4. Aggrieved, the appellants unsuccessfully questioned the summoning order before the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.10173 of 2010. Inevitably the matter came up before the trial Court under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. where the accused appeared pursuant to the summons issued by the Court. Instead of adducing evidence in support of the prosecution as mandated by Section 244, the complainant filed a pursis (memo) stating that he did not wish to lead any additional evidence and that the evidence submitted along with the complaint may be considered as evidence for purposes of framing of the charge. The Magistrate took the pursis on record and fixed the case for arguments on framing of charges. The appellants' case is that written submissions filed by them before the Magistrate raised a specific contention that no charge could be framed against them as the complainant had not led any evidence in terms of Section 244 of the Code and that the depositions recorded before the Magistrate under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. could not be considered as evidence for the purposes of framing of charges. The Magistrate, however, brushed aside that contention and framed charges against the appellants under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate, the appellants preferred Criminal Revision Application No.56 of 2011 before the Sessions Judge at Gandhi Nagar who allowed the same by his order dated 18th July, 2011 primarily on the ground that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 245(2) of the Cr.P.C. rendered the order passed by the Magistrate unsustainable. The Sessions Judge accordingly remitted the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 244 to 247 of the Code keeping in view the decision of this Court in Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 115.

Merely presenting such witnesses for cross-examination would be of no consequence.”

24. In the result we allow this appeal with costs assessed at Rs.50,000/- , set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore that passed by the Sessions Judge. The costs shall be deposited by respondent No.2-company in the SCBA Lawyers' Welfare Fund within two weeks of the pronouncement of this order.
Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya vs Divisional Manager, ...

2. The appellant became a victim of road accident which occurred on 8.9.2003 when he was hit from behind by bus bearing No. KA-04-A-3784 belonging to respondent No. 2. As a result of accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on different parts of the body. On the same day, he was admitted in Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Banglore. He was discharged on 22.9.2003.

4. In their written statements respondent Nos. 1 & 2 denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the bus and pleaded that they were not liable to pay compensation.

6. Dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the 3 appellant filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court did notice that as per PW-2, the appellant had suffered 26% disability in the right lower limb, 25% urethral injury and 38% disability to the whole body but granted a meager enhancement of Rs.31,000/- and declared that appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.76,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

13. In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether the compensation awarded to the appellant is just or he is entitled to enhanced compensation under any of the following heads:

As per urologist opinion he need surgery for STRUCTURE URETHRA.

After referring to various guidelines and including Alimco manual I am the opinion that the petitioner is having disability 26% of right lower limb & 25% due to urethral injury and 38% disabilities to the whole body. In view of this disabilities, the petitioner cannot work as a Carpenter and cannot do any other manual work also.

1) Case Sheet.

2) Recent examination O . P . Book

3) Recent check X-ray."

20. For pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- deserves to be awarded to the appellant. Likewise, for the loss of amenities including the loss of prospects of marriage which has become an illusion for the appellant, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2 lacs.

22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and it is declared that the appellant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,37,640/- with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation to the appellant with interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of judgment by preparing a draft in his name.

NOVEMBER 8, 2011.
State Of Punjab vs Atma Singh & Ors

1. These appeals are inter-linked and are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal before the High Court was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.406-DB of 1996. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar had found the accused persons guilty of various offences. Accused Lal Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') while Dial Singh, Atma Singh, Sajjan Singh and Karam Singh were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Dial Singh was also found guilty of offence punishable under section 302 IPC while four others were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. All the five accused persons were guilty of offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. Accused Lal Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC while accused Lal Singh, Atma Singh, Sajjan Singh and Karam Singh were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 read with section 149 IPC. Accused Atma Singh, Sajjan Singh and Karam Singh were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Accused Lal Singh and Dial Singh were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Lal Singh and Dial Singh were also found guilty under Section 27 of arms act, 1959 (in short the `Arms Act').

9. Coming to the question of testimony of three injured eye witnesses the trial Court noticed that their statements were flawless and nothing has come out in their cross examination on the basis of which any doubt could be created about their veracity. The place was a secluded one. The incident 8 took place on the turning of the passage. The incident continued sufficiently for a long time which was clear from the fact that many shots were fired, firstly by Lal Singh then by his son Dial Singh resulting in the death of Major Singh and his mother Dalip Kaur and injuries to some of the witnesses.

12. In the instant case the analysis done by the trial Court was appropriate and the High Court should not have on mere surmises and conjectures interfered with the judgment of the trial Court and directed the acquittal. In the result, the appeals are allowed. It is to be noted that respondent No.1- Atma Singh died on 26.9.2001. Other accused persons are directed to surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.

13. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Anil @ Raju Namdev Patil vs Administration Of Daman & Diu, Daman & ...

The appellant was taken to the place pointed by him with Mr. Jallauddin Mohamed Dali (PW-2) and Mr. John Bosco Machado (PW-3). They were also accompanied by the diver of the Coast Guard School Clifford Coutinho (PW-10). They were requested by the investigating officer to serve as panch witnesses in preparing the recovery panchnama of the said case. The preparation of panchnama commenced at 1610 hrs and concluded at 1630 hrs. The only infirmity, pointed out from their evidence was, whereas PW- 2 in his evidence stated that the appellant did not enter the nalla to take out the bones; according to PW-3, he did so. However, on perusal of their evidences, we find that both of them have stated that it was one person PW- 10 who went into the nalla and took out the bones. Both PW-2 and PW-3 as also PW-10 gave a vivid description as to the mode and manner in which the appellant pointed out the place whereat the dead body of Paras was burnt, the nalla wherefrom the bones were recovered and the spot where some burnt pieces of cardboard and ashes were seen. The grass area of that spot was also found to have been burnt. On the other side of the nalla, burnt shoes and burnt trousers were found. That spot was at a distance of about 500 mtrs. from a factory known as Midley. It was an isolated place and was a grassy area.

The propositions of law which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 364-A of the Act. We, however, find him guilty of commission of an offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. He, in our opinion, deserves the highest punishment prescribed therein, i.e., the rigorous imprisonment for life and we direct accordingly. The appeal is dismissed with the modification of sentence as also quantum thereof.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs M/S. Annapurna Construction

12,20,289/- was made. So far as Claim Item No. 11 is concerned, which related to the escalation of materials, an award of Rs. 90,005/- was made. It appears that before the arbitrator parties agreed that the award be filed before this Court.

16. Ordinarily, although there may be cases to the contrary, the principle that the right of appeal should not be taken away, should be applied. There might be strong reason to deny the suitor a right of appeal.

21. As the question of jurisdiction of a Court is involved herein, we are of the opinion, by consent of the parties also, jurisdiction cannot be assumed by this court.

22. We, therefore, for the foregoing reasons as also the binding precedents are of the opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these applications. The Registry, therefore, is directed to send the records to the Court of District Judge, Dhanbad who in turn is directed to transfer the case to a court having appropriate jurisdiction. The court concerned is requested to dispose of the objection filed by the appellant herein as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of records.

23. The applications are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. No costs.
Ravindran @ John vs The Superintendent Of Customs ...

1. The facts of the case are that PWs 1 and 2 who were officials of the Customs Sea Base Party, Tiruchendur on receiving specific information rushed to the Kayalpattinam Bus Stand at about 3.00 a.m. on December 21, 2000 since there was reliable information that one person carrying psychotropic substance was to come there. At the bus stand they found appellant Ravindran and on suspecting him to be the person concerned they informed him that they are going to conduct personal search and asked him whether he would like the search to be conducted before a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The appellant did not insist on his search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. He was searched by PWs 1 and 2 in the presence of two independent witnesses namely, Ravi and Chandrasekar. The appellant was found to be carrying a white coloured polythene bag. On searching the bag one polythene packet was found inside the bag which was opened in the presence of the independent witnesses. It was found to contain white colour powder. On being asked the appellant informed them that the substance was Diazepam. The same was, therefore, seized under Mahazar, Ex. P-2. The packet was sealed and brought to the Customs Office since there was no facility to weigh the substance and to prepare samples at the bus stand. The two independent witnesses also accompanied the appellant and PWs 1 and 2. On weighing, the substance was found to weigh 1.528 Kilograms. Two representative samples each weighing 5 grams were drawn and sealed in two separate covers which were duly packed, labeled and sealed with the customs seal. According to the prosecution the substance seized was worth about Rs. 75,000/-.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on further questioning the appellant confessed his guilt and his confessional statement Exb. P-4 was recorded. From the confessional statement of the appellant, the involvement of the other two accused was revealed. The appellant was arrested on December 21, 2000 while the other two accused were arrested on December 23, 2000. Peter John (co-accused) admitted that the plastic bag containing white colour powder had been given to him by his friend Hiralal (co-accused) and that he had handed over the same to the appellant for sale.

12. In the instant case we find that the courts below have critically scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses applying the rule of caution and we find no reason to disagree with their findings.

Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2005

1. The appellant in this appeal is Peter John whose complicity was disclosed in the confessional statement of Ravindran. The appellant Peter John and Hiralal were arrested at Salem on December 23, 2000. They were brought to Madurai where their confessions were recorded which are Exbs. P-10 and P-l 1.

8. In these circumstances we are of the view that appellant Peter John is also entitled to the benefit of doubt. We, accordingly, allow his appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence. He shall be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.
Purshottam Vishandas Raheja & Ors vs Shrichand Vishandas ...

5. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

6. It is his further case that since 1999, he has not been keeping well, and therefore, he executed three Powers of Attorney 4 from time to time. The first one was executed on 8.8.2000 in favour of his wife and Appellant No.1 which was for performing various acts and deeds on his behalf as his Constituted Attorneys in furtherance of this project. He executed second Power of Attorney on 21.9.2005 again in favour of his wife and Appellant No.1 as well as Appellant No.2 which is also in the similar fashion as the first one. The third Power of Attorney was executed on 24.10.2000 which is a specific power in favour of Appellant No.1 for giving evidence on behalf of the Respondent No.1. It was his further case that though there was one Joint Account with Appellant No.1 in Indian Bank since 1993, one more Joint Account was opened on 10.10.2001, this time in HSBC Bank which was particularly for carrying the transactions relating to the property and developments thereon. It was his case that all amounts deposited in that account belong to him. He opened one more Joint Account on 1.2.2008 in the State Bank of India with the Appellant which was stated to be opened for payment of taxes etc. relating to the property.

10. This led to the first Respondent to file the above mentioned suit against the appellants. The Indian Bank, Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC Bank) and the State Bank of 8 India were joined as defendants No.3 to 5 respectively. The three principal prayers in the suit were as follows:

23. For the reasons stated above, in our view, the present case, is not one where mandatory interim injunction, as sought by the Respondents was justified. The learned Single Judge had passed a reasoned order, and, in no way, it could be said that he had exercised 2 the discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or perverse manner, or had ignored the settled principles of law regarding grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. There was no reason for the Appellate Bench to interfere and set aside that order.

24. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the merits of the rival claims of the Appellants as well as the Respondents. We have confined ourselves only with respect to the question as to what should be the interlocutory arrangement in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was well reasoned and justified in that context.

In the facts of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
Komal vs State Of M.P

Parents and brothers of unconscious Daulat immediately took him to the police station, where Shrilal lodged the first information report (Ex-P/7) Thereupon, a case under Sections 294 341 & 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. Daulat and other injured namely, Shrilal, Phoolabai and Harlal were sent to the PHC Bankhedi for medical examination. Dr. R.C. Agrawal (PWI5), after examining Daulat, referred him to the District hospital, Hoshangabad for admission and treatment and also advised radiological examination of the injury found on the scalp. Pursuant to his advice, Daulat was taken to the District Hospital at Hoshangabad where he succumbed to the injuries on 20.4.1988.

4 After inquest proceeding, the dead body of Daulat was sent for post mortem that was conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari (PW14). During investigation, the accused were arrested and at their instance respective weapons were recovered. One white shirt worn by the deceased at the time of incident was also recovered and seized. All these articles were sent to the FSL, Sager, along with the ordinary and blood stained soil seized from the spot for chemical examination. Observing bloodstains on all these articles excepting the ordinary earth seized from the spot, the Chemical Examiner forwarded the exhibits to Serologist for further examination. However, the Serologist could only determine presence of human blood on the shirt and the blood stained earth seized from the spot.

The trial Court as noted above convicted A-2 Ishwar and A-4 the present appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC respectively for their individual acts and sentenced them as indicated above. No appeal was filed by A-4 Komal against his conviction. Appeal was filed by State before High Court. According to the stand of State before the High Court, the true parameters of Section 149 IPC were not kept in view. The High Court accepted the stand and directed conviction as noted above. 5

9. It has been categorically held by both the trial Court and the High Court that there was no common object and in any event the present appellant was not a member of any unlawful assembly. Having held so, the High Court ought not to have altered the conviction as recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the trial Court vis-`- vis the present appellant is restored and that of the High Court vis-`-vis the present appellant stands quashed. If the appellant has served the sentence as imposed by the trial Court, the bail bonds executed for giving effect to order dated 8.1.2008 shall stand discharged. Otherwise, the appellant shall surrender forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.
S.K.Jha Commodre vs State Of Kerala & Anr

It is clear to us that the judgment of the High Court is in conformity with the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Som Dutt Datta vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR (1969) SC 414. The Constitution Bench while construing Rule 3 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules 1978 read with Sec. 549 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 475 of the Cr.P.C.) held that the option as to whether the accused be tried before the Criminal Court or by a Court Martial could be exercised only after the Police had completed the investigation and submitted the charge- sheet and that the provisions of the Rule could not be invoked in a case where the police had merely started an investigation against a personnel subject to Military, Naval or Air Force law. The facts of the present case indicate that three Naval Officers were arrested on -2- 10th January, 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 307, 326, 427 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and some other penal laws. They were produced before the Magistrate on the 11th January, 2008 who remanded them to judicial custody. An application was filed on the 14th January, 2008 by the Commanding Officer of the Naval Unit to which they belonged for handing over the accused for trial under the Navy Act, 1957. This application was rejected by the Magistrate holding that the stage of consideration of the application would arise only on the completion of the police investigation which was still at a preliminary stage and that the request of the Commanding Officer was premature. The order of the Magistrate was challenged before the High Court of Kerala in revision. This too has been dismissed on similar grounds. We see from the facts that the observations of the Constitution Bench apply fully to the facts herein. The stage at which the option can be exercised by the Commanding Officer (as to whether the accused should be tried before a Court Martial or a Criminal Court) cannot be examined at this stage as the investigation has not been completed and a charge-sheet has yet to be submitted.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors

Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said notification dated 04.08.1999, some of the residents of the locality filed a public interest litigation being Writ Petition No.9078 of 2001. In the meanwhile a notice was issued to the Respondent No. 6 by the Corporation as to why, deviation having been made from the sanctioned plan, the same should not be directed to be removed. As the Respondent No.6 failed to remove the deviated portions, the Corporation by its notice dated 06.01.2002 authorized the Executive Engineer to give effect to the confirmatory order passed by it by removing the deviated portions. The Respondent No.6 thereupon approached the Standing Committee by way of appeal whereafter his hotel licence was renewed. As running of hotel allegedly caused nuisance, a representation was made by the Ladies Association of the locality on 12.01.2002. A further representation was made on 19.01.2002 by the general public.

IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE STATE:

JUDICIAL REVIEW:

CONCLUSION: