L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
State By Inspector Of Police, T.Nadu vs Rakiappan & Ors

These two appeals are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 281/1998. The respondents faced trial for allegedly committing homicidal death of two persons (hereinafter referred to as D1 and D2 respectively). The occurrence according to the prosecution took place on 7.12.1995 around 7.30 P.M. All the four accused persons entered into the house of the deceased Nos. 1 and 2. A-1 held Nachimuthu Gounder while A-2 inflicted blows on the neck and cheek. A-4 threw down Saraswati while A-3 caught inflicted blow on her head, face and the eye. PW2 who was about 12 years then was an eye-witness to the occurrence. Ramu i.e. PW2 tried to avoid the attack which was made on him because of -2- the instigation of A1. A2 inflicted blows on the head of PW2. The injured persons were taken to the hospital, PW2 regained consciousness and his statement was recorded by PW6 the investigating Officer on 13.12.1995. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. The Trial court relying on the evidence of PW2 held the accused persons guilty and convicted each under Section 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the first offence, nine years for the second offence. The accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court which as noted above directed acquittal. The primary reason which appears to have weighed with the High Court to direct acquittal was that PW2 was not a in a fit condition to give the statement. Reference was made to the seriousness of the injuries sustained by him as stated by the Doctor PW17.

In view of the above, we find that the High Court had not indicated any plausible reason to discard the evidence of PW2. The High Court did not examine the acceptability, credibility and truthfulness or otherwise of PW2's evidence by analysing the evidence vis-a-vis the other factors and materials on record. In the circumstances while setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court we remit the matter to the High Court to consider the appeal afresh and -4- decide whether the evidence of PW2 is sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused persons as projected by prosecution.

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Chet Ram vs Jit Singh

Indisputably, while working as Gramin Dak Sewak, appellant contested in an election for membership of Nagar Panchayat Sardulgarh held on 9.03.2003.

Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition in terms of Sections 76, 79 and 89 of the Act and Rule 87 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994 before the Election Tribunal. However, upon receipt of notice, appellant submitted his resignation.

Agadi Sanganna Andanappa, Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev and Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay."

13. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements, the High Court must be held to be correct in arriving at its opinion that appellants were disqualified from contesting in the election of Nagar Panchayats. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.

October 22, 2008 15
Sudheer Singh @ Sudheer vs State Of A.P

3. According to the prosecution, on 10.7.1992 at about 9.30 p.m. at Muslimgunj bridge all the accused persons caused the death of one Govindlal (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). It was further alleged that they caused injuries to P.W.1. The accused, allegedly, had stolen Rs.1,50,000/- and the scooter belonging to P.W.-1 bearing R.T.O. Registration No. AP-12-1090.

5. It is to be noted that the appeal filed by A-2 and A-3 was allowed and the conviction and the sentence imposed were set aside. Since the prosecution has not challenged the order of the High Court, so far it relates to directing the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 is concerned, the same remains unaltered. We have interfered in the matter because the judgment of the High Court is practically unreasoned and the evidence has not been ..4/-

6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Ramachami vs State Rep. By State Prosecutor

324 IPC, but he was found to be not guilty of that charge. Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000 were imposed. It was directed that in case the fine was collected, the same was to be paid to the widow of Kuttappan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased').

..5/-

10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. ......................J. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT] ......................J. [C.K. THAKKER] ......................J. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA] NEW DELHI October 22,2008.
S.L. Construction & Anr vs Alapati Srinivasa Rao & Anr

(2) The factual matrix involved herein is not in dispute. (3) Appellants had entered into some business transactions in regard to supply of certain materials with Respondent No.1. Appellant No.2 as a proprietor of appellant No.1 issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in favour of the -1- complainant-respondent on or about 22.6.2003. Appellants contend that the said cheque was issued by way of security.

(4) The said cheque was presented in the bank on 23.6.2003. It was returned un-paid by the banker of the appellants on the ground of insufficient funds.

(5) Another notice was sent for service on the proprietor of S.L. Structures and Engineers on or about 8.7.2003. However, admittedly, the said notice was not served upon the appellants.

(6) The said cheque was again presented before the bank on 30.8.2003, and was again dishonoured.

(7) Respondents served another notice upon the appellant No.2 describing him as a proprietor of S.L. Structures and Engineers and calling upon him to pay the said amount of Rs. 2 lacs within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof.

(9) It is in the aforementioned situation, the respondents presented the cheque for the third time before the bank on 11.12.2003 which having been dishonoured, another notice was sent and served on 17.12.2003. The cheque was dishonoured for the third time also.

(10) Indisputably, as no payment was received from the appellant pursuant to the said notice, a complaint petition was filed on 23.1.2004. Upon receipt of summons, appellants moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, as noticed hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.

(iii) The High Court failed to take into consideration that the cheque having been deposited after -3- three months and three notices having been issued one after the other, no cause of action survived, as earlier, two notices for presenting the cheque before the banker had been issued which had already been dishonoured.

(22) What is prohibited is presentation of the cheque within the afore-mentioned period and not the number of times it is presented. It is, therefore, immaterial whether for one reason or the other the complainant had to present the cheque for the third time or not.

(33) In view of the findings aforementioned we have no hesitation to hold that the cause of action for filing a complaint arose only once and not more than once as contented by by Mrs. Desai, learned counsel.

(35) For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

......................J. [S.B. SINHA] .....................J [ CYRIAC JOSEPH ] New Delhi, October 23, 2008.
R. Kalyani vs Janak C. Mehta & Ors

3. First and second respondent approached the High Court for an order for quashing of the said FIR as also the investigation initiated pursuant 2 thereto or in furtherance thereof. The High Court allowed the said proceedings by reason of the impugned order dated 29.4.2004.

(4) An offence of forgery being a serious one and in view of the fact that the respondent No.2 forwarded a letter purporting to authorize the accused No.3 to transfer shares to the National Stock Exchange, he must be held to have the requisite intention to commit the said offence along with the respondent No.3.

13. LKP Shares and Securities Ltd. (the Company) is a company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Whereas respondent No.1 is its President, the second respondent is its Branch Coordinator. Both of them are stationed at Bombay which is its headquarters. It has many branches including the one at Chennai. Every branch is said to be an independent entity.

(b) In view of the fact that the appellant herself owed a sum of Rs.13.28 lacs to the company and her group, a sum of Rs.45 lacs which is evident from the balance sheet of the appellants, continuation of the 4 criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents would be an abuse of the process of court.

23. In the aforementioned factual backdrop, we although do not agree with the approach of the High Court, concur with its conclusion.

The allegations contained in the First Information Report, therefore, do not disclose an offence against the respondent Nos 1 and 2. They have in their individual capacity been charged for commission of offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery.

Maxwell in The Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edn) says:

27. If a person, thus, has to be proceeded with as being variously liable for the acts of the company, the company must be made an accused. In any event, it would be a fair thing to do so, as legal fiction is raised both against the Company as well as the person responsible for the acts of the Company.

28. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. Before parting with this case, however, we must clarify one aspect of the matter.

29. In view of our findings aforementioned, we have no other option but to hold that the High Court in its judgment cannot be said to have covered the case of the respondent No.3. The investigation against him, therefore, shall continue. However, it will be open to him to take appropriate defences at appropriate stages as are permissible in law.

30. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations.

October 24, 2008
S/S Kanpur Edibles Pvt.Ltd vs Commr.Trade Tax,U.P

5. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

Orders of assessment were passed for the two assessment years 1997- 98 and 1998-99 on 27.2.1999 and 17.6.2000 respectively. On 21.8.2001 notice for re-assessment in terms of Section 21 of the Act with authorization 2 of the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur under Section 21(2) was issued. It is to be noted that for the period during which such notice can be issued is normally two years, but with the approval of the Commissioner it can be extended to 4 years from the end of the concerned assessment year. The order was passed on 29.5.2003 holding that the notice issued under Section 21 was cancelled. In other words, holding that there was no need for any variation in the assessment orders. On 31.1.2006 and 8.2.2006 notices under Section 10-B of the Act for revision of the order dated 29.5.2003 in respect of two assessment years were issued. Preliminary objections raised by the appellant relating to limitation were rejected by order dated 23.12.2006. Appeal was preferred before the Tribunal which by order dated 13.3.2007 reversed the Joint Commissioner's order and held that the notice under Section 10 was issued beyond the period of limitation. Department filed Tax Revision cases before the High Court. As noted above, the High Court has set aside the orders of the Tribunal.

(b) before the expiration of sixty days from the date of the order in question;
Chinnakarupathal & Ors vs A.D. Sundarabai & Ors

One Ammasai Gounder filed a suit against A.T.Krishnasami Mudaliar and another for recovery of amounts due towards supply of jaggery in O.S.No.226 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. The suit was decreed on 14.10.1947. The defendants in the suit filed an appeal in the Madras High Court in A.S.No.713 of 1947. On an application by the defendants (appellants in that appeal), stay of execution of the decree was 2 granted subject to the defendants depositing the decretal amount in court. The High Court permitted the plaintiff (respondent in that appeal) to withdraw the said decretal amount after furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court. One Ramaswami Gounder became the surety and gave his agricultural lands as security for the amount permitted to be withdrawn by the plaintiff.

2. The appeal by the defendants was allowed by the High Court on 31.10.1952 and the money decree granted in O.S.No.226 of 1946 was set aside. Consequently, the defendants in the suit moved an application for restitution under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC' for short). The plaintiff did not repay the amount withdrawn by him and absconded. Therefore the defendants filed E.P.No.134/1957 for recovery of the amount by sale of the lands offered as security by Ramaswami Gounder. The lands offered as security were sold by auction on 16.11.1960 and 6.9.1961. The fifth Respondent and predecessors of respondents 6 to 26 are stated to be the auction purchasers.

4. It is stated that Rajammal settled the lands which had been offered as security, as also some other properties in favour of one Chinna Pappu 4 Gounder, brother of her husband Ramasami Gounder under registered settlement dated 3.6.1960. The appellants herein are the legal heirs of the said Chinna Pappu Gounder. When the matter referred by this Court was received by the Executing Court, Rajammal and the appellants herein filed the following three applications :

10. The appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed.
Shamshad Begum vs B.Mohammed

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). Prayer in the petition was to quash all proceedings in CC No. 1042 of 2004 on the file of learned Vth JMF Court Mangalore. Appellant is the accused in the aforesaid case in relation to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(in short the `Act'). The petition was filed before the High Court on the ground that the Mangalore Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. It was stated that the agreement between the parties was entered into Bangalore and the parties live in Mangalore and the cheque were returned from the banks at Bangalore and therefore the Bangalore Court has jurisdiction to try the case.

3. In response, the respondent had submitted that before issuing notice to the appellant he had shifted his residence to Mangalore and therefore he had issued the notice from Mangalore which was received by the appellant and the reply was sent by her to the complainant to the Mangalore address. Therefore, as one of the components of the said offence i.e. notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of cheque amount was sent from Mangalore, Court at Mangalore had jurisdiction to try the case. The High Court noted that one of the components of the offence was giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the 2 cheque amount. The said action took place within Mangalore jurisdiction and, therefore, the petition was without merit. It was however stated that if the presence of the appellant was not very necessary for continuation of the proceeding, on appropriate application being filed, the court can grant exemption from appearance.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

10. The appeal is dismissed.
M/S. M.M.T.C. Limited vs Commr.Of Commercial Tax & Ors

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that it was not maintainable. The appeal was filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchacha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). It was held that the order was passed in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution') against which the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. The order of learned Single Judge was passed on 9.11.2005. Against the said order, special leave petition was filed which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 16.2.2006. We shall refer to the text of the order later. The High Court construed as if this Court has only waived the limitation for filing of Letters Patent Appeal and there was no direction to consider the case on merits.

6. A bare reading of the order shows that the direction was to consider the LPA on merits and time was granted to prefer the LPA within three 3 weeks. The High Court was directed to dispose of the LPA on merits if it was otherwise free from defect. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that this Court's earlier order only waived the limitation for filing a Letters Patent Appeal. On that score alone the High Court's order is unsustainable.

19. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the orders and proceedings of a judicial court subordinate to the High Court are amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

17. In view of what has been stated above, the High Court was not justified in holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable. In addition, a bare reading of this Court's earlier order shows that the impugned order is clearly erroneous. The impugned order is set aside. The writ appeal shall be heard by the Division Bench on merits.

18. The appeal is allowed.
Munna @ Pooran Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

2. Two Criminal Appeals came to be filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh; one being by the appellant Munna (Accused No. 1) and Brijlal (Accused No.3) while another appeal came to be filed by Barra @ Radhacharan (Accused No. 2). The High Court allowed the appeal in the case of Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 and acquitted them of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the appeal of the present appellant Munna (Accused No.1) was dismissed confirming his conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC. It is this judgment which is in challenge before us.

3. The prosecution story is based on the First Information Report (Ex. P-11) lodged by Gariba (P.W.4), the father of the deceased Chhota on 01.02.1997 to the effect that in the morning, three accused persons came to his house when his son Chhota was sleeping. The appellant then entered the house and took away Chhota to a nearby place - Chamrola (the platform used by the villagers for chit- chatting etc.). It was further alleged that while the 3 two acquitted accused caught hold of Chhota by his hands, the appellant Munna fired at Chhota due to which he fell down and died on the spot. On that basis the investigation started and after the completion of the investigation, all the accused were tried before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chattarpur. On their conviction, all the accused filed appeals before the High Court which resulted in the conviction of the appellant being confirmed.

19. It is reported that the appellant was released on bail during the pendency of his appeal. The State shall take immediate steps to arrest him by issuing Non-bailable warrants against him and arrest him for undergoing the rest of the sentence.

November 4, 2008.
Dadan vs State Of M.P

2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that according to the prosecution, the incident in question took place on December 14, 1990 at 07.05 p.m. at Kabari Tola, District Satna in front of Pan shop of one Bablu. The case of the prosecution was that on the fateful day, all the accused were standing near the shop of Bablu. Jawaharlal Sahu (deceased) came there on his scooter. All the accused persons were waiting for the deceased. They formed an unlawful assembly whose members were armed with deadly weapons like gupti, knife, iron rods etc. The common object of the accused persons was to kill Jawaharlal. On seeing Jawaharlal, all the accused started inflicting injuries on him. Jawaharlal cried for help. His brother PW 5 Motilal who was sitting at the watch shop of Ramcharan Singh, immediately reached there to rescue him, but he was also beaten by the accused persons and serious injuries were 3 caused to him. The incident was witnessed by PW 7 Hiralal, father of the deceased, PW 9 Janki Bai, mother of the deceased as also PW 10 Bharat Kumar, brother of the deceased. Other persons also came there. The accused fled away. Jawaharlal died due to injuries sustained by him. Motilal was taken to hospital. First Information Report was lodged immediately at 8.45 p.m. The accused were arrested on the next day, i.e. December 15, 1990. They were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 as also Section 307 read with 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Usual investigation was carried out and the case was committed to the Court of Session by the Chief Judicial Magistrate since it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

4. At the trial, the prosecution, in support of the case, examined fifteen 4 witnesses. The accused in their defence examined four witnesses.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, out of five accused, four accused (other than Kirti Singh) preferred criminal appeals. The High Court again appreciated the evidence on record and by the judgment impugned in the present appeal held that the appeal filed by accused No. 3-Rajesh Viswakarma @ Thapa was required to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and his conviction and sentence was set aside. With regard to other accused, however, the court held that the trial court did not commit any error in recording finding of guilt against them and there was no substance in those appeals. Order of conviction and sentence, therefore, was confirmed.

8. Appellant Dadan who was accused No. 2 has challenged his conviction by filing the present appeal.

14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal preferred by appellant-accused No. 2 Dadan deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded by 10 the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are maintained.

November 04, 2008.
State Of Maharashtra vs Arjun

According to the prosecution, the appellants were having illicit relationship which was being objected to by Jagnandan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). Taking exception to his interference to their illicit relationship, the accused persons decided to take away his life and accordingly he was killed. Since, there was no direct evidence, the prosecution relied upon certain circumstances to establish that the accused persons were guilty. The Trial Court found the five incriminating circumstances to be sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused persons and, accordingly, convicted them, as aforenoted. In appeal, the High Court found that the evidence was sufficient so far as accused No.1 is concerned, but was insufficient so far as the present respondent is concerned. It is to be noted that apart from five allegedly incriminating circumstances, which were pressed into service so far as the present respondent is concerned, there were other materials to hold accused No.1 guilty. The High Court -3- was of the view that the circumstances highlighted were not sufficient to fasten the guilt on A-2 and directed his acquittal while upholding the conviction of A-1.

Above being the position, we find that the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.