L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Bhaiyamiyan @ Jardar Khan & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

away from the place of incident though the police station of village Kasbatal was Unarasital only 7 k.m. away.. The prosecutrix was accordingly sent for her medical examination to the hospital at Vasoda. Information was also sent to police Station Unarasital along with the -2- medical examination report Ex.P.A. and the subsequent investigation was conducted by the police of police station Unarasital who seized the petticoat of the prosecutrix and sent it for examination.

On the completion of the investigation the accused were charged under Sec.376 (2)(g) of the IPC for having committed gang rape on PW.1. The Trial Court, vide its judgment dated the 6th January, 1992 observed that in the light of the fact that the FIR had been lodged after a delay of about 60 hours and that the statement of the prosecutrix was full of contradictions and as the statements of her father and mother (PW2 and PW.3) were based on the information given by her to them, no reliance could be placed on their evidence as well. The Court also found that in the light of the fact that the prosecutrix had declined to be medically examined at Sironj, where the First Information Report had been lodged, and had insisted that she be examined at Vasoda which was 55 k.ms. away, cast a doubt on the prosecution story. The court further observed that as per the medical evidence no injury had been found on her person though she had been raped by two persons and as such there was no evidence to suggest that rape had been committed. On a cumulative assessment of the prosecution evidence the Trial Court acquitted the accused.

We are therefore of the opinion that on a cumulative assessment of the evidence, as given above, the finding of the Trial Court could have been given under the circumstances and the High Court's interference was, therefore, not called for. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the conviction of the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted.

The appellants are on bail; their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
Shaji & Ors vs State Of Kerala

2) Brief facts:

15) In view of the above discussion, the appeal insofar as Appellant No.1 (A-1) is concerned, is dismissed as not pressed.

Insofar as Appellant Nos. 2-4 (A-2 to A-4) are concerned, the conviction and sentence under Sections 302/149 IPC are set aside. Inasmuch as Appellant Nos. 2-4 were enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.11.2007, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.

MAY 3, 2011.
State Of U.P & Ors vs Rakesh Kumar Keshari & Anr

3. Backgrounds facts sans unnecessary details are as under:-

7.07 Renewal of term (1) At least three months before the expiry of the term of a District Government Counsel, the District Officer shall after consulting the District Judge and considering his past record of work, conduct and age, report to the Legal Remembrancer, together with the statement of work done by him in Form No. 9 whether in his opinion the term of appointment of such counsel should be renewed or not. A copy of the opinion of the District Judge should also be sent along with the recommendations of the District Officer.

(2) Where recommendation for the extension of the term of a District Government Counsel is made for a specified 12 period only, the reasons therefore shall also be stated by the District Officer.

17. Thus it was not open to the respondents to file Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for compelling the appellants to utilize their services as Advocates irrespective of choice of the State. It was for the State to select its own Counsel. In view of the poor performance of the respondents in handling/conducting criminal cases, this Court is of the opinion that the High Court committed a grave error in giving direction to the District Magistrate to forward better particulars of 10 candidates whose names were included in the two panels prepared pursuant to advertisement dated 16.01.2004 and in setting aside order dated 07-09-2004 of the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, U.P. calling upon the District Magistrate to send another panel/list for appointment to the two posts of A.D.G.C. (Criminal).

18. The directions given by the High Court in the impugned Judgment run contrary to the well-settled principles of law and therefore cannot be upheld. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal succeeds. The Judgment dated 11.07.2005 rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28444 of 2005 is set aside. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. In peculiar facts of the case there shall be no orders as to cost.

May 04, 2011.
Hafeeza Bibi & Ors vs Shaikh Farid(Dead) By Lrs. & Ors

3. Shaik Farid, Sappoora Bibi, Khairunnisa Begum, Noorajahan Begum and Mohd. Iqbal (son of Alima Bibi) - hereinafter referred to as `plaintiffs' - filed a suit for partition against Mehboob Subhani, Mohammed Yakub and Rabia Bibi (hereinafter referred to as `defendant 1', `defendant 2' and `defendant 3' respectively). The son and daughters of Syed Ali, who was brother of Shaik Dawood, were impleaded as other defendants (hereinafter referred to as `defendants 4 to 7').

4. The parties are governed by Sunni Law. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that Shaik Dawood died intestate on December 19, 1968 and the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 became entitled to `A' schedule properties and half share in `B' schedule properties. The 2 plaintiffs stated that the defendants 4 to 7 are entitled to other half share in `B' schedule properties.

5. Mohammed Yakub -- defendant 2 -- contested the suit for partition. He set up the defence that Shaik Dawood executed hiba (gift deed) on February 5, 1968 and gifted his properties to him. Shaik Dawood put him in possession of the hiba properties on that day itself. The hiba became complete and the plaintiffs were fully aware of that fact. The defendant 2 in his written statement also referred to a previous suit for partition filed by some of the parties which was dismissed in default.

9. The present appellants are legal heirs of the deceased defendant 2.

36. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated September 13, 2004 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is set aside. The judgment and decree dated April 27, 1988 passed by the Principal, Subordinate Judge, Vishakhapatnam is restored. The parties shall bear their own costs.

(Surinder Singh Nijjar) NEW DELHI.

MAY 5, 2011.
Sushil Suri vs C.B.I & Anr

4.The Company is a public limited company, engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. In order to run its affairs, from time to time, the Company had been raising funds from different sources, like loans from different banks/financial institutions as also from the open market by way of `public issues', `rights issues' and `bonds' etc. Investigations revealed that in the year 1998, the Company, through its directors, including the appellant in this appeal, applied for a hire purchase advance of `2 crores from Punjab and Sind Bank (for short "PSB"), Hire Purchase Branch, New Delhi, for purchase of various machinery items to be installed at their manufacturing units at different places. It transpired that the machinery for which the loan was raised from PSB was never purchased by the Company and, in fact, to defraud PSB, photographs of the existing/some other machinery were taken by affixing labels of PSB and the same were filed with PSB, as confirmation for having purchased the machinery, for which the loan was raised under the hire purchase limit. It was discovered that although the loan taken by the Company from PSB had been repaid, but the Company never purchased any machinery, utilising the funds disbursed by PSB against the purchase of machinery. Furthermore, the value of the machinery, purportedly purchased with these funds, was reflected in the balance-sheet of the Company and even depreciation on the said machinery, amounting to `52,33,066/-, was 4 also claimed in the Income Tax Return/Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) for the assessment year 1998-1999, without any such machinery having been actually acquired.

7.As already stated, the High Court has come to the conclusion that merely because the Company and its directors had repaid the loan to PSB they could not be exonerated of the offences committed by forging/fabricating the documents with the intention of defrauding the bank as well as the exchequer. The High Court was of the view that the ratio of the decision of this Court in Rumi Dhar (Smt) Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.2, was applicable on the facts of the present case and the decision of this Court in Nikhil Merchant (supra) was clearly distinguishable on facts. Thus, the High Court held that on the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant was not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed with costs. He was directed to appear before the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us in this appeal.

[Emphasis supplied]

24.In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. The Trial Court shall now proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court or in this judgment on the merits of the Chargesheet.

MAY 6, 2011.

(ARS) 1
Murugan @ Settu vs State Of Tamil Nadu

1. All the three appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 981 and 986 of 2002, by which the High Court had disposed of the said appeals preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of the trial court dated 24.6.2002, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2000, by which appellant Murugan @ Settu (A.1) had been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 and 7 years on those counts respectively. Other appellants stood convicted under Sections 366 r/w 109 IPC and were sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment.

(C) On being questioned by Shankari (PW.4), she was threatened by A.1 and A.2 that if she made noise they would spoil her life. She was taken to the house of Smt. Logammal (PW.7), the grand-mother of A.2 at Kaliampoondi, at about 1.00 P.M. They stayed there at night. On 12.2.1998, M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1), father of Shankari (PW.4) lodged an FIR in Crime No. 209 of 1998 that his daughter had gone to attend the school on 11.2.1998 and did not return. Thus, she was missing.

(G) After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Subsequently, the trial court framed the charges against A.1 under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and so far as A.2 and A.3 were 4 concerned, they were charged under Sections 366 r/w 109 IPC and Sections 376 r/w 109 IPC. As all the three appellants denied the charges and claimed trial, they were proceeded with trial.

(H) In support of its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and 12 documents were exhibited and marked. Five properties were also marked. In defence, the appellants examined a photographer as DW.1. Three documents i.e. D1 to D3 were also exhibited and marked. After concluding the trial, the Sessions Court convicted all the appellants and imposed punishment as aforesaid.

(I) Being aggrieved, all the three appellants preferred Criminal Appeals before the High Court which have been disposed of by the common judgment and order impugned herein with certain modifications in the conviction and sentence so far as A.2 and A.3 are concerned. It set aside their conviction under Sections 366 r/w 109 IPC and convicted them under Sections 363 r/w 109 IPC and imposed punishment of two years. Hence, these appeals.

14. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to hold that prosecutrix, Shankari (PW.4) was major on the date of incident and in view thereof, no other issue is required to be considered. We also see no reason to interfere with the quantum of punishment in either of these appeals. Thus, appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

15. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled.

Appellants must surrender within 30 days from today to serve the remaining part of the sentences, failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, shall apprehend the appellants and send them to jail. Copy of the judgment and order be sent to the court concerned for information and compliance.
Jawahar Singh vs Bala Jain & Ors

Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.864-865 of 2010 were also filed by the Petitioner against National Insurance Company Ltd., Jatin and the heirs of Mukesh Jain, deceased. A brief background of the facts will help us to understand and appreciate the case of the Petitioner better. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8660 of 2009.

2. On 18th July, 2004, at about 1.20 p.m. the deceased, Mukesh Jain, was riding his two-wheeler scooter No.DAI 1835, with his son, Shashank Jain, as pillion rider. According to the prosecution story, when they had reached the SDM's Office, Geeta Colony, Delhi, a motorcycle, bearing registration No. DL-7S-G-3282, being driven in a very rash and negligent manner, tried to overtake the scooter and in that process struck against the scooter with great force, as a result whereof the deceased and his son were thrown on to the road and 3 the deceased succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by him.

The claim of the Petitioner No.3 was settled at 24,900/-. The insurer was held liable to satisfy the Award and to recover the amount from the owner of the motorcycle.

12. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the view that the story of Jatin, who was a minor, walking into the house of the Petitioner and taking the keys of the motorcycle without any intimation to the Petitioner, appears to be highly improbable and far-fetched. It is difficult to accept the defence of the Petitioner that the keys of the motorcycle were taken by Jatin without his knowledge. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to accept the case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, attempted to be made out on behalf of the 13 Petitioner. Accordingly, since the notice on the Special Leave Petition was confined to the question of contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the deceased, we see no reason to interfere with the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
Commr.Of Police,Delhi & Ors vs Jai Bhagwan

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are that the respondent herein, at the relevant point of time, was working as a Constable in Delhi Police and was posted at the IGI airport, New Delhi at the X-Ray Machine Belt. An allegation was made by one Mrs. Ranjana Kapoor that while being so posted there the respondent extorted Rs. 100/- by way of illegal gratification from her during the course of security check of passengers. It is alleged that Mrs. Kapoor made a complaint to one S.P. Narang, Operations Officer of Air France who took the complainant to O.P. Yadav, Inspector, Delhi Police on duty at the Delhi Airport. It is also alleged that the complainant identified the respondent, who thereupon returned the aforesaid sum of Rs. 100/- to the complainant in the presence of O.P. Yadav, Inspector, and Arjun Singh, Sub-Inspector, who were also present at that time.

4. In view of the aforesaid allegations made against the respondent, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and a chargesheet was drawn up with a charge to the following effect: -

6. With the aforesaid records and the findings, matter was placed before the disciplinary authority who directed that any representation as against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer could be submitted by the respondent.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the disciplinary authority the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was also dismissed vide its order dated 19.01.1996. Consequently, the respondent filed a revision which also came to be dismissed. Feeling still aggrieved the respondent filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short "the Tribunal"] which was registered as OA No. 1755/1997. By order dated 15.01.2001 the Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid original application as against which the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi. By the impugned judgment and order passed on 20.01.2010 the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent. In the aforesaid judgment and order the High Court made following observations: -

18.Albeit there could be a needle of suspicion pointed towards the respondent. However, suspicion cannot take the place of proof and, therefore, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.

wages or arrears of wages for the period during which he was out of service but we also observe that he would not be given any sensitive posting and he shall be kept under watch.

......J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ] 12 ............................................J [ Anil R. Dave ] New Delhi, May 10, 2011.
M/S Atma Ram Builders P.Ltd vs A.K.Tuli & Ors

In this case, the order of this Court dated 06th October, 2010 has been totally flouted. It appears that the alleged sub-tenant in the execution proceedings raised an objection which was rejected on 01st April, 2011 against which an appeal was filed to the Additional District Judge Archana Sinha who by a detailed order dated 23rd April, 2011, has granted stay of the warrant of possession. CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011 -5- It seems to us that in this country certain members of the Subordinate Courts do not even care for orders of this Court. When this Court passed an order dated 06th October, 2010 granting six months' time to vacate, the contemnor Archana Sinha, Additional District Judge had no business to pass the order dated 23rd April, 2011 but instead she has stayed the warrants of possession, meaning thereby that she has practically superseded our order and overruled us.

In view of this, the contempt notice against the contemnors is discharged.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts to be placed before their respective Hon'ble the Chief Justices for information and appropriate orders.

The Contempt Petitions are disposed of.
Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors

(b) Till 15.06.1989, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,53,000/-, in all, on various dates. As the defendants did not execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific 2 performance being O.S. No. 91 of 1991 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Chikmangalur. By order dated 01.10.1999, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale dated 02.05.1988. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 7 filed appeal being R.F.A. No. 52 of 2000 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.

(c) The High Court taking into account the submission of the counsel for the appellants and respondents, fixed the market value of property at Rs.300/- per sq. ft. The total area of property is 4,655 sq. ft. (48' x 90'), therefore, the total market value of property would be Rs.13,96,500/-. The High Court, by its judgment dated 03.03.2009, while holding that as Defendant No.3 was not a party to the agreement and he proposes to purchase the 9/11th share by paying value to the plaintiff and the value of 9/11th share would be Rs.

(d) Thereafter, an application being Misc. Civil No 13474 of 2009 in R.F.A. No. 52 of 2000 was filed for deleting some words from the judgment and the same was dismissed.

16) Accordingly, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed with the above direction. No order as to costs.

MAY 11, 2011.
B.Kothandapani vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd

as compensation payable to the appellant-claimant.

a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 21.05.1998 for which he made a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.P. No. 3868 of 1998 for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs as compensation. The Tribunal, after finding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-III), Kancheepuram (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), by order dated 20.12.2000, quantified the compensation and passed an award for Rs.5,05,053.45.

In other words, by the said order, the High Court allowed the appeal of the Corporation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and dismissed the appeal of the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.

In other words, the Corporation is liable to pay Rs.

5,05,053.45 with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. If the said amount has not been deposited so far, the Corporation is directed to deposit the same in the Tribunal within two months from the date of the receipt of this order and if any amount had already been deposited/paid 1 to the claimant, the same shall be adjusted. On such a deposit being made, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. The appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs.

MAY 12, 2011.
Allahabad High School Society & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors

8) It is not in dispute that the Assistant Registrar of the Society issued certain show cause notices to the appellants which were challenged by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9598 of 2010. When notices dated 02.02.2010 and 11.02.2010 were issued to the Society, they filed the said writ petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the same. The High Court, after finding that it would be appropriate to adjudicate the matter by the relevant authority on the basis of relevant records whether the amendments made in the bye-laws by the appellants were valid or not and whether the object of the Society meaning in the initial bye-laws has been changed or not or whether it is against public policy, all these have to be adjudicated on the basis of the show cause notices and it will be inappropriate to go into the correctness of the same at this stage, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 16.04.2010 as not maintainable and directed the Registrar to decide the dispute between the 7 parties after affording opportunity to the appellants as well as the respondents-objectors.

11) Against the dismissal of the Special Appeal No. 615 of 2010, the Society approached this Court by way of special leave petition and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2010 with an observation that the Assistant Registrar is free to pass an order on merits including the question of jurisdiction in accordance with law.

16) The above-said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench by way of Special Appeal No. 281 of 2011 which was also dismissed on 25.03.2011.

19) In the light of the factual findings by the authority concerned-the Assistant Registrar, affirming the same by learned Single Judge and Division Bench, it is impermissible for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is relevant to point out that the Assistant Registrar, in his order dated 24.07.2010 itself permitted the Bishop, Diocese of Lucknow, who is an ex-officio member of the Society and Chairman of the Governing Body under the Rules, to convene a general body meeting after informing all the members about the present situation and circumstances and reasons, there is no valid ground for interference by this Court. Consequently, appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

MAY 12, 2011.