L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Jaleshwar Singh vs State Of Bihar

1. Challenge in this appeal is by Accused No.1 who alongwith two others faced trial before learned Sessions Judge. Present appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). Accused No.3-Bir Bahadur Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC. Both A-1 and A-3 were sentenced to imprisonment for life. A-3 was additionally convicted under Section 324 IPC. The two appellants before the High Court were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 307 IPC respectively. The trial Court however held the third accused Hari Shankar Singh @ Timal Singh guilty in terms of Section 324 IPC. But taking into consideration the young age instead of sentencing him directed him to be released on bail on executing interim bail bonds of Rs.2,000/- or two sureties of like amount. Only A-1 and A-3 preferred an appeal before the high Court.

SLP by accused no.2 has been dismissed by order dated 2.3.1998. the present appeal is by A-1.

4. That being so, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 307 read with Section 110 IPC. Custodial sentence of 7 years would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appellant shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence.
Yadu Nandan Mandal & Anr vs State Of Bihar

Appellants, Yadu Nandan Mandal and Diwakar Mandal were tried along with Ganesh Mandal and Shyamdeo Jha for offences under Sections 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 379/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') on the allegations of having abducted and murdered Gauri Kant Jha and Aditya Nath Jha, disposed of their dead bodies and committed theft of their bicycles. The trial Court acquitted Shyamdeo Jha but convicted the remaining persons under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. However, all the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 304/35, 201/34 and 379/34 IPC. All the convicts preferred appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal, accused, Ganesh Mandal died and, on that account, appeal filed by him abated. So far as the remaining two appellants are concerned, the High Court confirmed their conviction and sentence. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and while upholding the conviction of the appellants, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against them is reduced to the period already undergone.

The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
Dakshin Haryana B.V. Nigam Ltd. & Ors vs Mauj Khan & Ors

4. Indisputably, the respondent never appeared in the Departmental Examination. The rules prescribed for appearance at the Departmental Examinations are contained in the Manual of Orders of the Haryana State Electricity Board, of which the appellant-Corporation was a constituent before its bifurcation. Clause 13 thereof reads as under :

5. Indisputably, inter alia, on the premise that he had not passed the Departmental Examination and thus was not entitled to obtain the benefit of the increment, the same was not granted. Indisputably again, the services of the respondent no.1 were not confirmed.

9. Both the parties preferred appeals thereagainst. By a judgment and order dated 30th October 2004, the learned Additional District Judge, 7 Gurgaon, dismissed both the appeals. A second appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellants has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

for promotion to the next post, whether benefit of Higher standard pay scale is to be given to such employee or not?

15. Indisputably, the matters relating to recruitment to a post, the period of probation, confirmation subject to passing of the Departmental Examination are governed by the statutory rules. Only on successful completion of the probationary period and passing of the examination, the services of an employee could be confirmed. Unless, services of an employee are confirmed, he could be treated to be in the regular service of this Board.

18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

However, he was allowed to continue in service and received the salary. What is denied is only the benefit of additional increment which can be granted on fulfilling certain conditions. In such circumstances, there may not be justification for payment of compensation. Instead, the appellants should be directed not to deny pensionary benefits to the respondent on the ground that his services were not regularized/confirmed. Such direction is necessary only if there is a move to deny pensionary benefits.

19. The appeal is allowed subject to the aforementioned order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 14

May 06, 2009
Narendra G.Goel vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The appeal relating to Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1880 of 2007 has been filed by Narender Goel who was not a party before the High Court while the Criminal Appeal relating to SLP(Crl.) No. 3206 of 2007 has been filed by Pawankumar Satyanarayan Goenka who 2 was also not a party before the High Court. Dr. Sadankumar Goel, the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1930 of 2006 is the husband of Dr. Asha Goel (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') who was found murdered. Said Dr. Sadankumar Goel filed the Criminal Writ Peition No. 1930 of 2006 with the prayer that respondents 1 to 7 in the Writ Petition should be directed to take appropriate steps under Section 166(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') in CPNA No. 6 of 2004 registered at DCB CID, Unit II Malabar Hill Police Station CR. No.93 of 2003, in so far as the forensic investigation is concerned and to approach the Government of Canada for seeking assistance from appropriate agencies of the said Government to investigate the offences in so far as they relate to DNA testing of the articles recovered from the accused Pawankumar 3 Satyanarayan Goenka the appellant in the appeal relatable to Special Leave (Crl.) No. 3206 of 2007 and Pradeep Parab during the investigation and of the materials recovered from the Santro car seized during investigation along with all other materials collected in the course of investigation relevant for the purpose of such forensic and medical examination to Canada as there is no such facility available in India.

7 (3) On such application being allowed, an appropriate request by way of letter of authority from competent court of law to the concerned court of law or authority where such evidence is available has to be made.

May 08, 2009 14
Union Of India & Ors vs Dalbir Singh & Anr

3) The appellants advertised in the News Paper for selection to 20 vacant posts of Mazdoor both in general and reserved category. Respondent No. 1 applied for selection in the reserved (OBC) category and had annexed his OBC certificate dated 4.5.1997. A separate Board Proceedings was prepared for the candidates who had claimed concession on the basis of OBC certificate and name of the respondent No. 1 was also in the said proceedings. Since the permanent address furnished in the application was different and the OBC certificate furnished was from the different State; the authenticity of the said document was sought from the issuing authority. It was intimated by SDO(C), Ambala, vide their letter dated 11.7.2000 that the said certificate was not issued by their office. The same was informed to respondent No.1, and thereafter, he produced another certificate dated 14.8.2000 issued by SDO(C), Ambala in which a new address was given and the respondent No.1 was shown to be in OBC category on account of his being of the `Saini' caste and later on it was found that `Saini' caste was not 2 in the OBC category in Punjab State. In view of this discrepancy in the caste certificate produced, the candidature of respondent No.1 came to be rejected by the appellants and, accordingly, no letter of appointment was issued to respondent No. 1.

11) For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
Bakshish Ram & Anr vs State Of Punjab

4) The High Court after scrutinizing the evidence on record has held that the deceased was compelled to commit suicide by the appellants in order to satisfy their lust for dowry, for which appellants are responsible and thereby dismissed the appeal.

12) With regard to the case of appellant no.2/Dalip Kaur, it has been contended that she is an 80 years old lady and is suffering from various 4 age related ailments. This factual assertion is not disputed by the respondents. Looking at the age of the appellant it does not seem fair to hold her back in jail during the pendency of appeal even if she had been convicted for the alleged serious offence, against which she has come before this Court. Furthermore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case and in view of the fact, that the appellant No. 2 is an old lady of 80 years of age and she had already been in jail for more than one year, in our view, she is entitled for the relief prayed in the application. Accordingly, we grant interim bail to the second appellant, subject to the appellant furnishing the bail bond as well as surety to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, Punjab. The observations made by us is only for the purpose of disposal of this application and we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this appeal.

13)Hearing of the appeal is expedited.

14)The application for grant of bail is disposed of.
Chittaranjan Mirdha vs Dulal Ghosh & Anr

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

After about 27 months i.e. on 27.2.03 the defacto complainant i.e. the present appellant filed an application before the Ld. Court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate praying for direction upon the DIG, CID, West Bengal to cause further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short the `Code') .

The learned court by order dated 9.6.2005 directed issuance of warrant of arrest was issued against the respondent no.1.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27.2.003 and order dated 9.6.2005, the respondent no.1 moved a revisional application being Criminal Motion No. 484 of 2005 before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore. Learned 4th Court of Additional. Sessions Judge, Alipore, who by order dated 13.3.2006 rejected the application on the ground that there was no scope to reopen the matter in view of an earlier application filed by one Arnab Roy, against the said dated 27.2.2003 and disposal of the said application being Criminal Motion No. 100/03 by order dated 21.1.2004. 4

7. It was directed that while taking note of the matter for fresh consideration a notice was required to be sent to the de facto complainant and giving de facto complainant an opportunity of hearing which was to be done before the order was passed.

17. Therefore, the stress is on the issue of notice by the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report. If the informant is not aware as to when the matter is to be considered, obviously, he cannot be faulted, even if protest petition in reply to the notice issued by the police has been filed belatedly. But as indicated in Bhagwant Singh's case (supra) the right is conferred on the informant and none else.

20. That being so we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
State Of Punjab vs Hardial Singh & Ors

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). The respondents were accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 364, 324, 323, 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The stand taken was that as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short the `Rules') framed under the Act, investigation had to be undertaken by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police specially appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account of his experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implication of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.

2 The stand of the State was that SP (D), Ferozepur had authorized Shri Manwinder Singh to investigate the case. It was admitted that there is a SSP in Ferozpur district who shall come within the definition of SP under Rule 7 of the Rules. The High Court held that SP (D) cannot be called District SP or the incharge of the District who could mark investigation to DSP Manwinder Singh. It was, therefore, held that the charges against the accused-respondents in the present case were to be dropped in respect of offences punishable under Sections 364, 324, 323, 149 and 148 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. After having said so, the High Court said that the observation that so far as the other offences are concerned as per report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police himself there had been party faction and efforts have been made to implicate many persons possibly the present petitioners. Strangely, the High Court found that the accused persons have been charged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur for offence punishable under Section 364 IPC for abducting Surjeet so that he may be murdered.

6. Having the view expressed in Chunnilal's case (supra) we hold that only investigation qua the offence under the Act is vulnerable and not those 4 relatable to IPC. It is open to the State to authorize any person in the manner prescribed to investigate into the offences under the Act.

7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass

4)The First Appellate Court affirming the findings of the Trial Court observed that the respondent was appointed as Fitter Coolie on 28.6.1984 in the Karnal division and was regularized on 22.1.1994 on the same post and other co-employees, Tej Pal was appointed as electrical helper on 5.7.1984 in the Karnal division and was promoted to the post of WPO 22.1.1985, but was regularized only on 1.2.1994 and Rajinder Kumar was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 19.11.1984 in the Kaithal division and was promoted to the post of WPO after being regularized on 21.1.1985. The Deputy Superintendent of appellants department admitted that prior to 1998 all the employees such as Fitter Coolie, Mali-cum- 3 Chowkidar, Keyman etc. used to be promoted as WPO. Thus, it becomes evident that respondent was senior to other co-employees.

19)In view of the above discussions, the appellants are directed to give promotion to the respondent with effect from 26.03.1987 and consider his name for further promotions and benefits on the basis of seniority. Further appellants are directed to pay only Rs. 35000/- in full and final settlement for all his back wages.

20)With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Chand Gupta & Ors vs State Of H.P

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Solan recorded the conviction as noted above and in appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan confirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court. A revision petition was filed before the High Court which dismissed the same by the impugned order.

3. Background facts as noted by the High Court are as follows:

shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine upto two thousand rupees and if found in possession of a working still for the manufacture of any intoxicant, shall be punishable with minimum sentence of six month's imprisonment and fine of two hundred rupees ....."

shall be punishable in case (a) with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, and in case (b) or case (c) with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees."
Bani Kanta Das & Anr vs State Of Assam & Ors

4. It is submitted that the accused has taken various dilatory steps to undo effects of this Court's judgment. It is submitted that NHRC had no role to play but it went beyond its jurisdiction to recommend purportedly on the basis of a complaint made by Prof. Ved Kumari.

16. Apparently, in the instant case that has not been done. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment and direct reconsideration of the application filed by the accused for commutation of sentence.

17. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Muni Kumar Razdan vs Trimuti Charitable Trust, Gwalior & Ors

3. The appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal submitted that writ petition was decided without issuing notice to the appellants before the writ court i.e. present respondents. The petition was disposed of on the first day it was listed for admission at motion hearing stage and after recording presence of counsel for the State on advance notice. 2

9. In the aforesaid background without entering into the issue relating to maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, we feel that the directions/observations of the Division Bench allowing the appeal filed by the respondents cannot be faulted. It is needless to say that the dispute in the pending suit(s) shall be adjudicated in the manner directed by the Division Bench. We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Deo Patodi & Ors

They arise out of the following factual matrix.

3. His parents filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") on or about 24.12.2003 inter alia claiming a sum of Rs.75 lakhs as compensation on the premise that while he was doing his Business Administration Course in U.K. he was also doing a part-time job with World Bank on a monthly salary of Rs.80,000/- (UK # 1008.31) and he was offered an employment in the capacity of EU Controller in GOA LLC, a company registered in USA at an annual remuneration of Rs.18 lakhs per annum approx. ($41,600/-) Indisputably, he did not accept the said offer. He intended to pursue his higher studies in MBA at Central Queensland University in Australia.

4. The learned Tribunal opined that keeping in view his capability he would have been employed on a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. 2/3rd was deducted from the said amount for working out the loss of dependency of the claimants at 1/3 rd. The multiplier of 13 was applied keeping in view the age of the claimants. An amount of Rs.9,36,000/- by 4 way of compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.2000/- was also granted towards funeral expenses.

5. The claimants preferred an appeal thereagainst in the High Court which was registered as M.A. No. 1842 of 2005. Enhancement in the amount of compensation was claimed inter alia on the premise that the dependency of the parents should have been taken into consideration at 2/3 rd of the income of the deceased and furthermore the expenses incurred during treatment should have also been awarded. The insurance company filed cross objections in the said appeal in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the income of the deceased could not be taken at Rs.18,000/- per month in the absence of any cogent evidence and that the claimants were not dependents on the deceased.

15. We are not oblivious of the fact that the multiplier referred to in the Second Schedule in the Act may not automatically be applied in a case initiated under Section 166 of the Act. We have applied the aforementioned multiplier keeping in view the fact that the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule would not ordinarily be applicable in a case under Section 166 of the Act.

18. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and that of the appellant is allowed. Tribunal may draw a fresh award in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. No costs.

May 12, 2009
Divisonal Manager, Rajasthan S.R.T.C vs Kamruddin

"4. That on being caught by the inspection team and on finding corruption their services could be terminated at any time and the security amount would be seized."

Within the aforementioned period of probation, inspections were carried out in the buses in which he had been discharging his duties as a conductor and on not less than five occasions, i.e., on 4.4.1983, 11.5.1983, 23.9.1983, 21.11.1983 and 8.2.1984, he was found to have not issued tickets to the passengers. Indisputably, on or about 19.4.1993, in relation to the incident which took place on 4.4.1983, a warning was administered to him, stating:

Hence, full fare of the route along with equal penalty or Rs.5/- whichever is more, shall be chargeable from the conductor."

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

May 12, 2009
Ram Singh & Ors vs Ram Niwas & Anr

3. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the 1st respondent alleging that his wife was attacked by nine persons including the five appellants herein. His mother was also assaulted. When his father rushed to their rescue, he was also surrounded by them and was assaulted as a result whereof, he expired. Upon investigation, a final form was submitted in favour of the appellants. A charge-sheet was filed only against four persons, viz., Kishori, Jagdish, Sarjit and Sheo.

Before the learned Upper Distt. & Sessions Judge, a large number of witnesses were examined and cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons. By reason of an order dated 29th May 2003, the learned Upper Distt. & Sessions Judge rejected the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein opining that no case has been made out therefor. A criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the 1st respondent before the High Court against the order of the learned Upper Distt. & Sessions Judge, however, has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment, stating: 3

8. Before the learned Upper Sessions Judge, the respondent no.1 herein was examined as P.W.2 on 23rd February 1998. He alleged involvement of the appellants herein in the incident. He had also attributed certain overt acts on their part, inter alia, contending that they had assaulted his father with the reverse side of an axe (farsi). One Ramesh Kumar, brother of the respondent no.1 was also examined as P.W. 7 on 22nd January 2003. Similarly, one Kanesh, son of respondent no.1, examined himself as P.W.8 on 22nd January 2003.

We do not agree.

17. The High Court, in our opinion, however, has committed a serious error in proceeding on the premise that mere existence of a prima facie case would be sufficient to exercise the court's jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code. We have noticed hereinbefore the importance of the word `appears'. What is, therefore, necessary for the court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as accused in the case.

19. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

May 13, 2009.