L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Arvind Kumar & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

2. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the appellants, are as follows:-

3. Arvind Kumaraccused No.1 is the son of Prem Bai @ Gulabraniaccused No.2. On April 26, 1982 Arvind Kumar married Sadhna, daughter of Bhag Chand (P.W.9) and sister of Sudarshan Kumar Jain (P.W. 5). After the marriage of Sadhna, the accused started harassing and humiliating her for not bringing adequate dowry articles. Prosecution alleged that on 29th June, 1982 both the accused demanded one table fan, one automatic watch and one almirah from Sadhna. The demand of the articles was again repeated on 2nd July, 1982. Sadhna was unable to satisfy the persistent demand of the accused. She was constantly tortured and harassed by the accused and as a result thereof Sadhna committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her person and setting her body on fire on 2nd July, 1982. The incident of suicide had taken place after one month and seven days of the marriage of the deceased Sadhna with Arvind Kumaraccused. On 3rd July, 1982, the crime report (Ex. P-10) of the death of Sadhna was reported by Santosh Kumar (P.W. 7), brother of Arvind Kumar accused, to the Police at Check Post Barha, Police Station Banda. After receiving the report and preparing First Information Report, P.W. 12 Rameshwar Prasad, Head Constable went to the place of incident and held the necessary Panchnama like seizure of certain articles found near the scene of offence, got the spot map (Ex. P-11) prepared from Ram Sewak Khare, Patwari. The dead body of Sadhna was sent for post mortem to District Hospital, Khargaon. After recording the statements of the material witnesses and after receipt of post mortem report Ex. P-16 of Dr. J.C. Jain, Medical Officer, District Hospital Khargaon (P.W. 14) and letter (Ex. P-

5. Initially both the accused were acquitted on 27th September, 1983 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. The appeal filed by the State against the acquittal order came to be allowed by the High Court. The High Court directed the Trial Court to record further evidence in the case. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, recorded conviction and awarded sentence as aforesaid. The High Court on reappraisal and re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused. Hence this appeal by the accused persons.

12. In view of the above settled position, the presumption contemplated under Section 113A is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case and the accused has not led any evidence to rebut the said presumption.

14. In the result, the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed upon Arvind Kumaraccused No.1 by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are maintained. Arvind Kumar-accused No.1 is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith and to suffer the remaining period of sentence. The appeal of Arvind Kumar is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence of second accused is, however, set aside. Bail/surety bonds in respect of Smt. Prem Bai shall stand discharged.
Collector Of Central Excise Etc. Etc vs M/S. Solaris Chemtech Limited & Ors

3. For the sake of convenience we may refer to the facts in the case of Civil Appeal No.6465-6475 of 2001 Commr. Of Central Excise & others v. M/s. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. and others (earlier known as 'M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.').

9. Before concluding, we may point out that in some of the cases electricity generated is consumed by the residential colony of the factory's workers' families, schools etc., to that extent MODVAT credit will not be admissible.

10. Subject to what is stated above, there is no merit in the civil appeals filed by the Department and accordingly they are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Commnr. Of Central Excise & Ors vs M/S. Solaris Chemtech Limited & Ors

3. For the sake of convenience we may refer to the facts in the case of Civil Appeal No.6465-6475 of 2001 Commr. Of Central Excise & others v. M/s. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. and others (earlier known as 'M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.').

9. Before concluding, we may point out that in some of the cases electricity generated is consumed by the residential colony of the factory's workers' families, schools etc., to that extent MODVAT credit will not be admissible.

10. Subject to what is stated above, there is no merit in the civil appeals filed by the Department and accordingly they are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Santanu Chaudhuri vs Subir Ghosh

2. The petitioner Santanu Chaudhuri filed a suit for eviction against Subir Ghosh in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), 9th Court, Alipore, which was dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and a decree for eviction was passed against the respondent Subir Ghosh (tenant) on 25.8.2005. Subir Ghosh then filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.21766 of 2005 in this Court. The petitioner Santanu Chaudhuri (landlord) also put in appearance on Caveat. The special leave petition was dismissed on 13.2.2006 and the following order was passed :

6. We, accordingly, direct the trial Court to cause delivery of vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioner Santanu Chaudhuri (landlord) by eviction of the respondent Subir Ghosh (tenant) or anybody else found in occupation of the premises, if necessary, with the help of police, within one month of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the trial Court. We make it clear that this order will not prevent or prejudice the petitioner (landlord) from taking any steps for recovery of rent and mesne profits as he is entitled in accordance with law. The petitioner will also be entitled to Rs.50,000/- as costs for the present proceedings. The respondent Subir Ghosh (tenant) is granted one month time to deposit the cost in the trial Court. In case the cost is not deposited as aforesaid, the trial Court shall recover the amount from Subir Ghosh (tenant) in accordance with law and the same shall be paid to the petitioner, Santanu Chaudhuri.

7. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

No case for initiating contempt proceedings is made out. The contempt petition is dismissed.
Santanu Chaudhuri vs Subir Ghosh

2. The petitioner Santanu Chaudhuri filed a suit for eviction against Subir Ghosh in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), 9th Court, Alipore, which was dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and a decree for eviction was passed against the respondent Subir Ghosh (tenant) on 25.8.2005. Subir Ghosh then filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.21766 of 2005 in this Court. The petitioner Santanu Chaudhuri (landlord) also put in appearance on Caveat. The special leave petition was dismissed on 13.2.2006 and the following order was passed :

6. We, accordingly, direct the trial Court to cause delivery of vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioner Santanu Chaudhuri (landlord) by eviction of the respondent Subir Ghosh (tenant) or anybody else found in occupation of the premises, if necessary, with the help of police, within one month of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the trial Court. We make it clear that this order will not prevent or prejudice the petitioner (landlord) from taking any steps for recovery of rent and mesne profits as he is entitled in accordance with law. The petitioner will also be entitled to Rs.50,000/- as costs for the present proceedings. The respondent Subir Ghosh (tenant) is granted one month time to deposit the cost in the trial Court. In case the cost is not deposited as aforesaid, the trial Court shall recover the amount from Subir Ghosh (tenant) in accordance with law and the same shall be paid to the petitioner, Santanu Chaudhuri.

7. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Smt. Subha Raj And Anr vs Sankar Sarkar And Anr

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

Appellant No.1 is the wife of appellant No.2 who is a doctor by profession. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 382, 386 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint after recording statements of the complainant and two others. Questioning correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, an application for revision was filed before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, First Track Court V, Alipore, South 24- Parganas. After hearing the revision petitioner-respondent No.1 herein the said revision petition was dismissed.

10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Iddar & Ors vs Aabida & Anr

3. Background facts need to be noted in brief.

On 17.2.2005 the elder sister of the complainant lodged a complaint before the police station alleging that she was married to one Shri Sakeel. After sometime, the family of the husband of her sister started demanding dowry and torturing her. When the complainant went to meet her sister, she saw several wounds on her person. It was stated that both sisters were beaten and the complainant was raped by her family members and friends of in-laws. First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') was lodged for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the 'IPC'). Since no case was found for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, the said offence was not registered.

4. Another complaint was lodged on 24.4.2005 in respect of the same alleged event in another police station where the case was registered for alleged commission of offence under Section 376 read with Section 120B IPC. The appellants were arrested and an application for bail was moved. The High Court rejected the bail application. According to the appellant matter was amicably settled and the complainant appeared before the trial court and her statement was recorded. Her statement was at variance with the statement recorded during investigation. Thereafter an application in terms of Section 311 of the Code was filed requesting for recording statement of the complainant afresh. This according to the appellants was at the behest of some local persons and enemies of the appellants. The trial court by Order dated 13.1.2006 held that it was a case where prosecution was trying to fill up lacunae of prosecution version and it was rejected.

6. On 20th February, 2006 the application was allowed. Thereafter an application was filed to recall the said order as no notice was issued to respondents in the petition. They also filed an application to be impleaded. The High Court by order dated 2.3.2006 rejected the application filed to recall the order dated 20.2.2006.

15. It is stated that the appellants have already been impleaded in the application. If that is so, there shall be no need of respondents being impleaded. If it has not been done, the same shall be done. We make it clear that we do not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

16. Appeal is allowed.
State Of U.P vs Mushtaq Alam

4. On 18.8.1979 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased was coming back home from Halim College crossing alongwith Shakir (PW-1). When they were in front of Jay Bharat Washing Company, accused-appellant appeared there with a country made pistol in his hand and fired a single shot on the back of the deceased, who on being hit, fell down on the ground. The incident was witnessed by Shakir (P.W.1) in the electric light emanating from the neighbouring houses. The cries of the deceased and Shakir (P.W.1) attracted to the scene of occurrence Ghulam Mustafa (PW-4) and Mohammed Jamil, who saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence. Similarly, constable Amar Singh (PW 7) also reached the spot on hearing shouts for help.

15. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors

11,97,660/- with effect from 01.04.1996. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of assessment, Respondents preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, in terms of Section 169 of the Act, inter alia, on the ground that the order of assessment was barred by limitation. By reason of an order dated 14.12.2000, the appellate authority opined that no amendment in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Act could be made after lapse of period of three years from the end of the year in which the notice was given and as the notice in the case had been issued in the period ending 31.03.1997, the order of assessment could be made only upto 31.03.2000.

5. Appellant herein being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 14.12.2000 filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 3227 of 2002. A learned Single Judge of the said Court allowed the said writ petition remanding the matter to the appellate authority directing it to determine the question on merits and in accordance with law.

17. When an order is passed by a high ranking authority appointed by the Central Government, the law presumes that he would act bona fide. Misuse of power in a situation of this nature, in our opinion, should not be readily inferred. It is difficult to comprehend that while fixing a period of limitation, the Parliament did not visualise the possibility of abuse of power on the part of the statutory authority. It advisedly chose the word 'made' and not 'communicated'. They, in ordinary parlance, carry different meanings.

[See C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. 2007 (7) SCALE 380]

30. We are, therefore, are not in a position to persuade ourselves to follow the line of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court that unless the order is communicated, it should be deemed to have not been made.

31. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Smt. Shakuntala vs State Of Haryana

2. The appellant was charged for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. The trial Court found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC while acquitting her from the other charges.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. The prosecution version was centered primarily around the dying declaration which was recorded by the learned First Class Judicial Magistrate (PW-6). Dr. Ranbir Singh (PW-5) had declared the deceased in a fit condition to make the dying declaration. The trial Court found the dying declaration to be acceptable and relying on the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, conviction of the appellant as noted above was recorded. The appellant's stand, that the dying declaration was not believable, was not accepted. As noted above, appeal before High Court was dismissed.

8. This is a case where the basis of conviction of the accused is the dying declaration. The situation in which a person is on deathbed is so solemn and serene when he is dying that the grave position in which he is placed, is the reason in law to accept veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides, should the dying declaration be excluded it will result in miscarriage of justice because the victim being generally the only eye-witness in a serious crime, the exclusion of the statement would leave the Court without a scrap of evidence.

11. There is no material to show that dying declaration was result of product of imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility.

14. The appeal is sans merit and is dismissed.
Idrishan Yakubkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat Thr. Public Prosecutor

3. Undisputedly, the challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 7.7.2004 passed by the Designated Judge, Special Court (POTA) Ahmedabad. There were two proceedings initiated against the appellant. The first was Pota Case No. 08 of 2003 arising out of complaints, namely, I.C.R. No. 184 of 2002 registered at Kagdapith Police Station, I.C.R. No. 116 of 2002 registered at Vejalpur Police Station and I.C.R. No. 244 of 2002 registered at Satellite Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307, 337, 286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') read with Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (in short the 'Explosive Act') and under Sections 3(3), 4,20, 21(2)(b) and 22(3) of the POTA. It is to be noted that two appeals were filed by the appellant i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.1287 of 2004 and 1288 of 2004. The appellant has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him in POTA Case No.8 of 2003. So far as the prayer for bail in POTA Case No.12 of 2003 is concerned, certain observations were made by the Court while dismissing Criminal appeal No. 1287 of 2004 on 21.9.2004. The High Court noted that because of acquittal in POTA Case No.8 of 2003 wherein further revival in that case the appeal was infructuous. Obviously, the same relates to Criminal Appeal No. 1287 of 2004. So far as the Criminal appeal No.1288 of 2004 is concerned, the same relates to the POTA Case No.12 of 2003. The High Court was therefore not justified in holding that the matter was concluded for various reasons in view of the observations made in the appeal relating to POTA Case No.8 of 2003.

5. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Bank Of India & Anr vs Tarun Kr. Biswan & Ors

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

4. Respondents who are Budlee workers were engaged on a temporary basis. Letter of engagement to the respondents clearly spells out that their employment was that of seasonal requirement of the appellant-Bank and it was only for a specific period of time on the expiry of which their services will stand terminated. The relevant stipulations read as follows:

5. Writ petitions were filed by the respondents praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Bank to regularize service of the respondents as subordinate staff in the Bank. It was stated that their names were sponsored by the employment exchange for interview for the recruitment of subordinate staffs. Panel was prepared including the names of writ petitioners and out of panel, 43 were appointed as staff in different branches of the Bank and 14 persons who had filed writ petition were left out. On different dates between 2nd March, 1986 to 30th June, 1986 writ petitioners were temporarily appointed as subordinate staff along with other candidates. On 5th December, 1991, the Bank asked the writ petitioners to exercise option for post of subordinate staff in non-CCA areas in West Bengal and the writ petitioners exercised their option to such posts. But no appointment was given. Stand in the writ petition was that though they had served for more than 240 days in a block of 12 months on several occasions they have been absorbed in the existing vacancies permanently. It was also pleaded that they were performing the duties which were done by regular subordinate staff of the Bank and the same are all permanent, regular and continuous nature of job relating to day to day business of the Bank. The Bank of India Employees' Association in the year 1994 raised an industrial dispute for regularization of the employees and staff who have completed 240 days service in a block of 12 calendar months in the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta. The said dispute was ultimately concluded through settlement on 23rd September, 1997, whereunder Bank agreed to regularize service of empanelled sub-staff who have completed 240 days in any block of 12 months. But ultimately three of the persons were regularized in 1997 but the rest were not regularized and they continued to work on daily rate basis.

12. There is distinction between temporary worker and budlee worker. The present case relates to entitlement under the settlement and the scheme. That being the position, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. Needless to say that whenever the respondents complete 240 days budlee work in a year or block of 12 months, their cases shall be considered in the light of the scheme, subject to continuance of the scheme, and change in policy if any.

13. Appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.
N.P. Jharia vs State Of M.P

During the period 16.9.1975 to 31.12.1983 the appellant was in possession of pecuniary resources and property worth Rs.10,19,210/- as disproportionate to his known sources of income. Proceedings were accordingly initiated. After investigation the Special Police Establishment (in short 'SPE') had submitted "final report" on l.3.1990 informing the court that no offence is made out against the appellant. That final report was accepted by the Special Judge on 17.4.1990. But on 1.7.1992 the S.P.E. submitted an application before the Special Judge for permission for further investigation. The Special Judge permitted further investigation. Thereafter, the sanction for prosecution was obtained from the State Government on 1.3.1995. The charge sheet was filed in the Court on 24.7.1995.

9. Accordingly, the conclusions of the trial court were upheld and the appeal was dismissed except for modification of the sentence.

17. Appeal is dismissed.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Basodi

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') by setting aside the judgment of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara who had convicted the accused-respondent for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act'). Life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively were awarded. Accused was charged for having committed the murder of his nephew Mangalu (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased').

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.