L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Central Bureau Of Narcotics vs Bahadur Singh

2. As per the prosecution story, at 6:00p.m. on the 5th of December, 1997, information was received by P.K. Sharma, Inspector of the Central Bureau of Narcotics which was recorded by him in Exhibit P7 that Bahadur Singh and Shyam Singh who were servants in the Dhaba belonging to one Bhanwar Singh situated on the Chittorgarh-Mangalwad Highway near village Nardhari, had CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 2004 CORRECTED COPY REPORTABLE 2 struck a deal to sell about 20 kgs of opium to a truck driver and as the exchange was likely to take place sometime during the night of 5th/6th of December, 1997, at about 2:00 or 3:00a.m., the accused could be apprehended if a raid was conducted. The raiding party consisting of P.W. 6 Inspector, Rajendra Kumar and P.W.10 Narayan Singh amongst others proceeded from Neemuch to the Dhaba and as they reached that place Bhanwar Singh, the alleged owner of the Dhaba, and Shyam Singh ran away though the respondent Bahadur Singh was apprehended. A notice under Section 50 of the Act was, accordingly, served on him and he was also searched and a key was recovered from his person. A box lying in the dhaba which was locked was opened with the key and 17.450kgs. of opium was seized therefrom. An FIR was thereupon lodged and after investigation, a case was filed in Court. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence convicted and sentenced Bahadur Singh, respondent, to 15 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lacs under Section 8/18 of the Act. An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the Rajasthan High Court which has, by the impugned judgment, set aside the order and judgment of the trial court and acquitted the accused. In arriving at its conclusion, the High Court has gone through the entire evidence and recorded several categoric findings CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 2004 CORRECTED COPY REPORTABLE 3 which the learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to challenge. It has first been recorded that there was no independent witness of the alleged recovery as all the independent witnesses had resiled from their initial versions and that even the two official witnesses, P.W. 6 and P.W. 10, had given discrepant statements with the result that they too could not be relied upon. The Court has also held that there was no evidence to identify the owner of the dhaba as the land belonged to Kishan Singh P.W. 4 as per the statement of the Patwari P.W.9 and that P.W. 4 had come in evidence and stated that Bahadur Singh had nothing to do with the aforesaid dhaba/land. The Court has further held that the confession allegedly recorded at the instance of the accused could not be believed as the statement Ex. P18 was discrepant on material particulars and, finally, that there appeared to be a complete violation of Sections 42 and 57 of the Act.

4. In any case, in the light of the fact that the judgment of the High Court proceeds primarily on an appreciation of the evidence, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. The appeal is dismissed.

.......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] .......................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 23, 2010.
Datta vs State Of Maharashtra

1. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed rape on P.W. 2 on the 24th of January, 1984, at about 5:00p.m. A report was lodged at the Parbhani Police Station (Rural) at 11:30p.m. the same night by the prosecutrix. In this Report, she stated that she had been raped by the appellant while she was collecting cow dung cakes from the cattle shed in her family's property and immediately after the rape had been committed, she had informed her mother, P.W.3, about what had transpired. The prosecutrix was also subjected to a medical examination by P.W. 1 who found no injuries on labia majora but the hymen was torn and lacerated but as there was no sperm detected in her it was not possible to give any categoric opinion about rape. In cross examination, however, the doctor admitted that the injuries that had been found on the prosecutrix could have been possible if there had been partial penetration of the vagina. The trial court in its judgment dated 24th September, 1985, held that as there was no medical evidence of rape the prosecution story could not be proved, beyond doubt. It, accordingly, made an order of acquittal. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court which cognizant of the fact that it was dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has set aside the judgment of the trial court and has convicted the appellant herein under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court has given a positive finding that the statement of P.W.2, the prosecutrix and her mother, P.W.3, clearly spelt out a case of rape and that as she was merely a child of 10 to 12 years of age as per the medical evidence, there was no reason whatsoever as to why she would tell a lie. The High Court has also observed that the trial court appeared to have misread the evidence of the doctor inasmuch that the evidence read as a whole clearly revealed that there had been partial penetration of the vagina of the prosecutrix.

5. The appeal is dismissed.
Mannu Lal Mahto & Anr vs State Of Bihar

2. The two appellants, a husband and wife, were convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment of one year by the Sessions Judge, Champaran, by judgment and order dated 24th March, 1997 in Sessions Trial No. 515 of 1987. Several co-accused of the appellants were, however, acquitted. The appellants thereafter filed an appeal before the Patna High Court and the High Court has confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Judge. It is in this background that the matter is before us after the grant of special leave.

7. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal with this modification in the sentence.

.......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] .......................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] Crl.A. No. 644 of 2004 4 NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 24, 2010.
Central Bureau Of Narcotics vs Bahadur Singh

2. As per the prosecution story, at 6:00p.m. on the 5th of December, 1997, information was received by P.K. Sharma, Inspector of the Central Bureau of Narcotics which was recorded by him in Exhibit P7 that Bahadur Singh and Shyam Singh who were servants in the Dhaba belonging to one Bhanwar Singh situated on the Chittorgarh-Mangalwad Highway near village Nardhari, had struck a deal to sell about 20 kgs of opium to a truck driver and as the exchange was likely to take place sometime during the night of 5th/6th of December, 1997, at about 2:00 or 3:00a.m., the accused could be apprehended if a raid was conducted. The raiding party consisting of P.W. 6 Inspector, Rajendra Kumar and P.W.10 Narayan Singh amongst others proceeded from Neemuch to the Dhaba and as they reached that place Bhanwar Singh, the alleged owner of the Dhaba, and Shyam Singh ran away though the respondent Bahadur Singh was apprehended. A notice under Section 50 of the Act was, accordingly, served on him and he was also searched and a key was recovered from his person. A box lying in the dhaba which was locked was opened with the key and 17.450kgs. of opium was seized therefrom. An FIR was thereupon lodged and after investigation, a case was filed in Court. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence convicted and sentenced Bahadur Singh, respondent, to 15 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lacs under Section 8/18 of the Act. An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the Rajasthan High Court which has, by the impugned judgment, set aside the order and judgment of the trial court and acquitted the accused. In arriving at its conclusion, the High Court has gone through the entire evidence and recorded several categoric findings which the learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to challenge. It has first been recorded that there was no independent witness of the alleged recovery as all the independent witnesses had resiled from their initial versions and that even the two official witnesses, P.W. 6 and P.W. 10, had given discrepant statements with the result that they too could not be relied upon. The Court has also held that there was no evidence to identify the owner of the dhaba as the land belonged to Kishan Singh P.W. 4 as per the statement of the Patwari P.W.9 and that P.W. 4 had come in evidence and stated that Bahadur Singh had nothing to do with the aforesaid dhaba/land. The Court has further held that the confession allegedly recorded at the instance of the accused could not be believed as the statement Ex. P18 was discrepant on material particulars and, finally, that there appeared to be a complete violation of Sections 42 and 57 of the Act.

4. In any case, in the light of the fact that the judgment of the High Court proceeds primarily on an appreciation of the evidence, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. The appeal is dismissed.
Gopal Swaroop vs Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of a suit for partition and separate possession by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 in this appeal have been set out in the judgment under appeal hence do not bear repetition. All that need be stated is that respondent no.1 the plaintiff in the suit claimed partition of what was described by him as joint family property with his father Shri Panna Lal-defendant no.1 as the `Karta' of the joint family. During the pendency of the suit Shri Panna Lal died giving rise to an additional issue as regards the devolution of the property left behind by him including his share in the joint family property. The appellant set up a Will allegedly executed by Shri Panna Lal according to which the share of the deceased testator was to devolve exclusively upon the former. The suit filed by the respondent was eventually decreed by the Trial Court holding plaintiff- respondent no.1 entitled to 1/5th share in the joint family 3 property and the goodwill of the joint family business. The Court also found that the Will set up by the appellant herein had been duly proved and that in terms thereof the property left behind by Shri Panna Lal would devolve exclusively upon the appellant.

out of share in the capital of the defendants as alleged or it was taken by him as his share in the capital, house and other properties as claimed by the defendants?

and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."

18. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench, is set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of that Court is restored. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Union Of India vs Sukesh Kumar Nayak

21. The respondent has claimed that his chances of promotion have been reduced by transferring his unit to the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to the appellant, even this is not factually correct. The appellant filed an additional affidavit before the 11 High Court in which it was mentioned that as per the combined common seniority of Assistants in the Directorate General of Secretarial Service, as it stood on 23.8.2001 i.e. before trifurcation, respondent Suresh Kumar Nayak was placed at Serial No.116 out of 176 Assistants shown in the seniority list, excluding the Assistants on deputation. After trifurcation of the Directorate General of Secretarial Service in 2001, taking his continuation in the Special Service Bureau as Assistant, his placing in the seniority list of the said unit is at Serial No.65 out of 112 Assistants. Similarly, he was allotted/ transferred to Aviation Research Centre on trifurcation of Directorate General of Secretarial Service and is borne on Aviation Research Centre's strength and his placing in the the seniority list would be at Srl. No.28, out of 46 posts of Assistants allotted to the Aviation Research Centre. Suresh Kumar Nayak, Assistant was not interested to be transferred/ allocated to Special Frontier Force on trifurcation.

(b) Labour officers (Central pool) consisting of Labour Officers and senior labour Officers.

(c) Labour Welfare Commissioners' cadre consisting of Assistant Welfare Commissioner and Welfare Commissioner.

27. In the instant case, even according to the appellant, the chances of promotion have in fact been increased.

29. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2002 of the Tribunal as well as the judgment dated 6.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.3000/2003.

30. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The original application filed by the respondent stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI) .....................J (H.L. GOKHALE) New Delhi;

November 25, 2010.
State Of A.P vs Thummala Anjaneyulu

2. The accused Thummala Anjaneyulu by name, developed intimacy with Suguna, daughter-in-law of PW-2. On the 6th of January 1997 PW- 2 found the respondent and his daughter-in-law in his cattle shed and that too in a compromising position. PW-2 raised an alarm on which the respondent ran away leaving behind a lungi and underwear belonging to him. Suguna was thereupon made to leave PW-2's house the next day. At about 4 p.m. on the 7th January 1997, the deceased Bhoomaiah went to the house of PW-6 for the purpose of organizing a Panchayat between G.Kistaiah and G. Ramulu with respect to some agricultural land. PW-3, the wife of the deceased, and another lady, Manemma by name, and his Crl.Appeal No.1616/2005 sister-in-law also followed 2 the deceased to oversee the outcome of the Panchayat. Several other persons too were present at that time including the accused and PWs. 3, 4, 5, and 6. During the Panchayat proceedings the deceased suspected that the accused was casting an evil eye on PW-3 and Manemma aforesaid. He thereupon confronted the accused and asked him as to why he was looking at the ladies whereupon the accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest which resulted in a serious injury to him. Bhoomaiah was immediately removed (in a tractor belonging to PW-1, his younger brother) to Eldurti for medical aid but he succumbed to his injuries on the way on which the body was taken to the Eldurti Police Station instead. PW-1 also gave a report Ex.P1 which was registered as a FIR by PW-10 the Sub-Inspector of the Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The Police Officer also visited the place of occurrence and made the necessary enquiries and also dispatched the dead body for its post-mortem examination to the Government Hospital, Medak and further handed over investigation to PW-11. The accused surrendered to the police and during the course of his remand made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the alleged murder weapon. On the completion of the investigation by PW-11, a charge-sheet was filed and the accused was ultimately brought to trial.

5. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh impugning the judgment of the High Court.
Lake Devt.Authority,Nainital ... vs Heena Khan & Ors

3. The High Court has passed a series of orders in the said proceedings. It appointed an Advocate as a conciliator to settle the dispute on 14.11.2006. On 6.12.2006, the said order was withdrawn and the Chairman of the appellant was required to be present on 12.12.2006 in court. By order dated 12.12.2006, the High Court disposed of the writ petition purportedly recording an undertaking of the Chairman of the appellant that the appellant/District administration would give an alternative land with an NOC to the respondent within one month. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an application for review seeking a direction to the appellant to grant permission to respondent to establish a petrol pump at the original site. The High Court allowed the review petition by order dated 28.3.2007 and directed the grant of sanction to first respondent within fifteen days, a licence to construct a petrol pump (retail outlet) at the originally applied plot. Again, the respondent applied for modification seeking a direction to the appellant to release the sanction plan within one week or to permit him to proceed on the basis of deemed sanction. The High Court allowed the said modification application also on 2.5.2007. Thereafter, the High Court has initiated contempt action suo moto and issued a notice dated 18.8.2007. At that stage, the appellant approached this Court challenging the orders dated 12.12.2006, 28.3.2007, 2.5.2007 and 18.8.2007 on several grounds. 3

5. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the request of the first respondent for withdrawal of the writ petition is worthy of acceptance.

6. In view of the above said request, we set aside the orders of the High Court of Uttaranchal dated 12.12.2006, 28.3.2007, 2.5.2007 and 18.8.2007 and permit the first respondent to withdraw WP No.1067/2004 with liberty to apply afresh for sanction. If and when such an application is made, the appellant will consider the same uninfluenced by what had transpired till now and in accordance with law. We are sure that having regard to the fact 4 that the issue had been pending for several years, such application may be disposed of expeditiously if the first respondent complies with all the requirements of law.

.............................J (R. V. Raveendran) ..............................J (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi;

November 26, 2010
M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd vs Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. & Ors

15. The 1951 Act placed the sugar industry in the First Schedule to the Act, which meant that no sugar industry could be set up without a licence from the Central Government.

These lists were changed from time to time during the period 1991-2010 and as things stand at present only a handful of industries now remain in these negative lists.

34. With respect we cannot agree with this observation. There is nothing in the 1951 Act which required a notification under Section 29B(1) to be approved by Parliament. Also, whether it is in the public interest to issue such a notification is ordinarily for the Government to decide, and the Court should exercise judicial restraint in this connection. Whether there should be licensing of an industry or not is for the executive authorities to decide.

51. In our opinion the impugned Press Note and Notification were validly issued under Section 29B of the Act. Hence the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside.

52. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 5857/2005 & 5858/2005

53. In view of our order passed in Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2005, these appeals stand disposed of. No costs.

November 29, 2010.
Amar Chakravarty & Ors vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited

3. Since the question of law arising in all the appeals is the same, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, a brief reference to the facts in S.L.P (C) No.7187 of 2008 would be expedient in order to appreciate the controversy at hand.

4. On 23rd November, 2000, the respondent-management dismissed the appellant without holding an enquiry mainly on the allegations that he had been participating in tool down strike; had been exhorting other workers to slow down the work so that there is fall in production of cars; had indulged in holding demonstrations within the factory premises and raised derogatory and offensive slogans against the management; and was threatening the supervisors etc. The relevant portion of the dismissal order reads thus:

7. Thereafter, the appellants preferred an application before the Labour Court for framing additional issues and disposal of the reference by treating them as preliminary issues. One of the proposed additional issue was with reference to the violation of Standing Order No. 21.3, which stipulates that no order of dismissal shall be made except after holding an enquiry against the workman concerned in respect of the alleged misconduct. However, the Labour Court, vide order dated 12th August, 2003, dismissed the application, observing as under:

18.For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed; the impugned judgments are set aside and the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the references expeditiously. The appellants will also be entitled to costs, quantified at ` 10,000/- for each set of appeals. 9 ...........................................

NOVEMBER 29, 2010 AR 1
M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai

3. The appellant - assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Vitamin A in a finished and marketable form. These are cleared on payment of applicable excise duties under Heading 29.36 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee is also engaged in the manufacture of animal feed supplements with the brand name `Rovimix' (now called `Endomie') and `Rovibe' (now called `Endobee').

5. Five show cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding excise duty on the product in question 2 consumed by the appellant in the manufacture of animal feed supplements. Adjudicating upon these five show cause notices issued to the appellant, the Commissioner confirmed the liability to duty for the goods manufactured and cleared between December 1989 and February 1995 and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The relevant portion of the finding of the Commissioner is reproduced herein :

16.We, therefore, find no infirmity in the findings of facts arrived at by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai- III as also the Tribunal. The appeal stands dismissed but we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

........................................J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma] ........................................J [Anil R. Dave] New Delhi, November 29, 2010.