evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 276

JAKIR

STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2003)

MAY 6, 2009 B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGULY, JJ.] " '

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 366 A and 376 (2) - Abduction c and rape - By five persons - Appellant accused convicted with two co-accused, the other two having absconded - Held: Since the victim in her statement in the court categorically stated that she did not recognize the appellant-accused, he is liable to be acquitted.

D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2002 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal E No. 2750 of 1998.

M. Qamaruddin, for the Appellant.

C.D. Singh for the Respondent.

F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the Judgment rendered by a Learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing

G the appeal filed by the present appellant who was appellant in

Criminal Appeal No. 2750/98 before the High Court. The present appellant was convicted after alleged commission of rape and abduction in terms of Section 366 A and 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Out of the five accused

H 276

JAKIR v. STATE OF M.P. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 277

persons tried, two absconded and the rest three were convicted A by the Trial Court. Trial Court imposed sentence of 10 years for each of the concerned, he preferred an appeal, as also two co-accused who were convicted by the Trial Court.

2. So far as the appellant is concerned his primary stand before the Trial Court and the High Court was that the B

prosecutrix having not identified him to be one of the persons

y who subjected her to rape, his conviction cannot be maintained. • The High Court did not deal with this aspect but confirmed the conviction and sentences as imposed by the Trial Court. In c support of the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the examination in chief itself the victim (PW-6) stated as follows:-

'I recognise the accused Raju and Pancham Present in the

'y Court. The witness after seeing the accused Jakir states D that "I do not recognise him because I have never been him"

3. Learned counsel for the State referred to letter parte of the evidence where in generalised manner the role of the five E accused persons was described.

4. Both the Trial Court and the High Court ignored the statement of the victim who in court categorically stated that she did not recognise him as she had never seen him.

5. That being so the conviction so far as the present appellant is concerned cannot be maintained. The appeal is allowed. The bail warrant executed to give effect to the order of bail in terms of the order of 10.2.2003 shall stand discharged.

G ~

K.K.T.

Appeal allowed.
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 42

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

BABU LAL (Civil Appeal No. 859 of 2004)

APRIL 21, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGULY, JJ.]

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 c - s.42(2) - Compliance of mandatory requirement under - Possession of huge quantity of brown sugar - Conviction u/ s. 8111 - Set aside by High Court for non-compliance of requirement u/s. 42(2) - Interference with - Held: Not called for - High Court referred to various factual aspects to come D to the said conclusion - Document required to prove receipt .,, of oral information not brought on record.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2004.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2003 the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal

"'t

• Appeal No. 70712002.

Milind Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant. r

F Ashok Kmar Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1: Challenge in this appeal is

G to the judgment of acquittal passed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench. The respondent was convicted for offence punishable under Section 8121 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter refeerred to as 'the Act'). The respondent was found

H 42 &---- ,.___

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABU LAL 43

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] " in possession of a huge quantity of Brown Sugar and the Trial A Court held that all the requisite procedure was followed and, therefore, according to the Trial Court, the prosecution version was established. The High Court found that there was noncompliance with the requirement of Section 42(2) of the Ar.t.

2. Various factual aspects have been highlighted by the B

High Court to come to this conclusion.

3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that some minor variations, if any, in not following the the procedure would not render the conviction bad. The learned counsel for the c respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.

4. We find that the High Court after referring to the various .,., factual aspects came to the conclusion that provisions of D • Section 42(2) were not complied with. The documents required ~

to prove the receipt of oral information were not brought on record. That being so, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal fails and it is dismissed

~ accordingly. ' E

N.J.

Appeal dismissed.
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 562

M/S. CHAUDHARANA STEELS (P) LTD.

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,

ALLAHABAD (Civii Appeal No. 5389 of 2007)

MAY 8, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGULY, JJ.]

C Cenfral Excise Act, 1944 - s. 35-G - Condonation of delay in filing appeal under - Power of - Held: High Court has no power to condone the delay.

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Naida v.

D Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida 2008 (3) SCC 73; Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Mis. Hoga India (P) Ltd. and Anr. 2009 (4) SCALE 37 4, relied on.

Case Law Reference

2008 (3) sec 13 Relied on.

2009 (4) SCALE 374 Relied on.

Para 1

Para 1

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5389 of 2007.

From the Judgment & Order dated 27.07.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Central Excise Appeal No. 23 (D) of 2005.

Pankaj Bhatia, Vivek Choudhary and Jainendra ' G Maldahiyar (T. Mahipal) for the Appellants.

Navin Prakash (8.V. Balaram Das) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHAUDHARANA STEELS (P) LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 563

CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In this appeal the only A

~ question that arises for consideration is whether there is power for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35- G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). By judgment delivered in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noicja v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Naida (2008 (3) SCC 73) B it was helq that the High Court has no power to condone delay in seeking reference under Section 35-H of the Act. Doubting correctness of the view reference was made to larger Bench.

By judgment dated 27.3.2009 a three-judge Bench in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise ~: Mis. Hongo c India (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2009 (4) SCALE 374 concurred with the view tken by the two-judge Bench in Punjab Fibres case (supra). The decision has full application to the present case also.

2. That being so this appeal deserves to be dismissed D

· which we direct. No costs.

N.J Appeal dismissed.
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 20

K.T. JOSEPH

~· -

STATE OF KERALA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.984 of 2009)

MAY 8, 2009 >-- B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

)<...

GANGULY, JJ.]

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: c

Section 202 - Amending Act, 2512005 - After the amendment, it is mandatory to conduct an enquiry - By deciding to examine the complainant and the witnesses, the Magistrate had already taken cognizance - Transfer of the

D case ordered by Single Judge of High Court - Held: The ' observations and directions are in order . .

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 984 of 2009.

E From the Judgment & Order dated 31.07.2008 of the High • Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Revision Petition No.

1858 of 2008.

.\, U.U. Lalit, T. Ajay, P. Harish, Pyoli and Sumita Hazarika

F for the Appellants.

R. Sathish and E.M.S. Anam for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. A small issue relating to the transfer of the proceedings \.. in CC 1290 of 2008 on the file of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam forms the foundation for these

H proceedings. By an order in Criminal Revision Petition no.1858

20 t.;·

::;

K.T. JOSEPH v. STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 21

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

of 2008 a learned Single Judge directed transfer of the case A to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Certain observations were made against the Judicial Officer and his conduct. Learned Single Jude has observed that after the amendment to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (in short the 'Code') with effect from 23.6.2006 by Central B Act 25/2005 it is mandatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of Code.

Learned Single Judge noted that the Magistrate had emphasized that he was considering the complaint at the pre cognizance stage which according to him was not correct. By C deciding to examine the complainant and the witnesses under Section 202 of Code, the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence and he was not considering the sworn statements of the witnesses at the pre cognizance stage.

Learned Single Judge felt that enquiry was'mandatory after 0 23.6.2006.

3. The legal position is unexceptionable.

4. In the background facts we do not think that any exception can be taken to the transfer as directed by learned i;:: Single Judge. The observations regarding the conduct are unnecessary and stand deleted~ Learned Single Judge has directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall have discretion to record further sworn statements if necessary in case he decides to take cognizance of the offence. The aforesaid observations and directions are also in order.

5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

G.N.

Appeal disposed of.
(2009] 9 S.C.R. 942

NORTH WEST KARNATAKA RD. TRANSPORT CORP.

GOURABAI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2009)

MAY 1, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGULY, JJ.] ~

-: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 166 - Injuries sustained c by deceased were not on account of any vehicular accident

- Hence, award by MACT not sustainable - High Court erred in upholding the award passed by MACT. .:..

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.

D 3171 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 27.2.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 2098 of 2005

(MV).

E R.S. Hedge and P.P. Singh for the Appellants.

Mallikarjun S. Mycar and E.R. Sumathy for the

Responderit~. >- .,.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the G learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the said appeal was to an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur (in short MACT). An award of Rs.2,59,400/- was made. The main contention of the appellant before the MACT H 942

i ~

NORTH WEST KARNATAKA RD. TRANSPORT CORP. v. GOURABAI [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 943

as well as before the High Court was that the deceased did A not sustain any injury in any accident involving the. bus of the corporation. Reference was made to the evidence of the doctor, who had admitted the deceased to the hospital, that the deceased had suffered head injury due to fall from the height of 8 to 10 feet of his own house. Though this was specifically B stated in the written statement, the MACT and the High court brushed aside the same stating that there was indirect admission about the deceased having sustained injury in vehicular accident. The effect of the evidence of the doctor and exhibit R-1 does not appear to have been looked into by the c MACT and the High Court. MACT did not place reliance on the document R-1 on the ground that the brother of the injured stated that he did not know what was written in the document and his signature was taken on one age. This conclusion overlooks from the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece D of paper mentioning something which is not correct. Exhibit R- 1 establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that the injuries sustained were not on account of any vehicular accident. That being so, the MACT and the High Court were not justified in making any award. The order of the MACT and High Court E stands set aside.

4. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.

B.B.B.

Appeal allowed.