evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 257

MAHAMUDUL HASSAN

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 109 of 2010)

OCTOBER 08, 2010

[MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:

Articles 32 and 161 - Writ petition challenging the order c passed under the Foreigners Act whereby a Bangladesh national was sentenced for illegally entering India - HE/ 0:

The petitioner has a right to appeal to High Court on judicial side - He can also approach the executive authority concerned uls 432 CrPC or to the Governor under Article 161 0 of the Constitution - Supreme Court being a judicial Court has no such powers - Writ petition dismissed - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 - s.432.

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 109 of 2010.

Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Shanti Ranjan Das (for Sarla Chandra) for the Petitioner.

The following order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution G making various prayers.

Petitioner, who is a Bangladesh national, has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur

257 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A at Balurghat, West Bengal under the Foreigners Act for illegally

entering India and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees ten thousand.

In our opinion, if the petitioner has a grievance against that

8 judgment, he has a right of appeal to the High Court on the

judicial side. He can also approach the concerned executive authority under Section 432 Cr.P.C. or to the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. This is a judicial Court and hence this Court has no power which the executive has under Section 432 Cr.P.C or which the Governor has under C Article 161 of the Constitution.

With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

R.P.

Writ petition dimissed.
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 681

A.M. BHARWAD AND OTHERS

STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

(Criminal Appeal No. 1585 etc.)

AUGUST 26, 2010

[P. SATHASIVAM AND B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

FIR - Two FIRs - Investigation into - Permissibility - Held: The issue elaborately decided in Babubhai's case*.

Investigation - Re-investigation and further investigation

- Propriety of charge-sheet, if investigation held to be unfair and vitiated - Held: The issues elaborately decided in Babubhai's case*.

*Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Judgment dated D 26.8.2010, decided. by Supreme Court. ·

CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1585 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2009 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc.

Application No. 8361 of 2009.

WITH

Crl.A. Nos. 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593, 1594, 1595-97, 1598 of 2010.

U.U. Lalit, P.S. Narsimha, R.K. Abichandani, C.A.

Sundram, Tushar Mehta, AAG. Ankur Chawla, Rahul Pratap, G Jayant Mohan (for COAC), Vimal Chandra S. Dave, Laxmi Abichandani, Sunil Patel, Hemantika Wahi, Meensha

(2010) 10 SCR 651.

681 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(2010] 10 S.C.R.

A Lovkumar, Nupur, Sushil KumarJain, Puneet Jain, Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, Zafar I., Anandh Kannan, P.K. Dey, Anirudh Sharma, A.K. Sharma, V.K. Biju, D.R. Bhatt, D.K. Garg, Keshav C. Thakur for the appearing parties.

B The following of the Court was delivered

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. All these matters have been filed by the persons c aggrieved by the Judgment and orC:er of the High Court of Gujarat dated 22.12.2009 in connected cases. The detailed judgment and order has been passed today i.e. on 26.8.2010

in Criminal Appeal No. 1599 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No 2077 of 2010 - Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.), and D Criminal Appeal Nos. 1600-1605 of 2010 (arising out of SLP

(Crl.) Nos.3235-3240 of 2010-State of Gujarat. & Ors. vs.

Ganeshbhai Jakshibhai Bharwad & Ors.).

3. The issues rais, ed in all these matters have been dealt with elaborately while deciding the aforesaid appeals. Thus, all E these appeals stand disposed of in terms of the said Judgment and order. The parties herein shall be entitled to the relief, if any, in accordance with the said Judgment.

RP.

Appeals disposed of.
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 969

GEETA DEVI & ORS.

PURAN RAM RAIGAR & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 7390 of 2010)

SEPTEMBER 6, 2010

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

s.100-A - No further appeal in certain cases - Appeal c against order of single Judge of High Court arising out of award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Maintainability of

- HELD: Division Bench of High Court rightly held that the appeal would not lie in view of s. 100-A - However, dismissal of the instant appeal by Supreme Court will not prevent the 0 appellants from filing an SLP directly against the judgment of single Judge of the High Court, if so advised, subject to all

jut exception including limitation - Constitution of India, 1950

- Article 136 .

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7390 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 5.7.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.

Civil Special Appeal No. 10 of 2007 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2777 of 2003.

Mukesh Sharma (for Rameshwar Prasad Goyal) for the Appellants.

A.K. De, R. Dwivedi (for Debasis Misra), Mohan Pandey G for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

969 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


ORDER

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

B This Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05th July, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 10 of 2007.

C In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07th August, 2006 did not lie in view of Section 100-A, CPC. The learned Single Judge had decided the Misc. Appeal No. 2777/2003 against the award of the Motor D Accident Claims Tribunal. In our opinion, this intra court appeal

in the High Court was not maintainable in view of Section 100- A, CPC notwithstanding anything in the High Court Rules or the Letters Patent to the contrary.

Hence, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Division bench of the High Court and this appeal is, therefore, -2dismissed. However, dismissal of this E appeal will not prevent the appellants from filing a S.L.P. directly

against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07th August, 2006 dismissing the Misc. Appeal arising out of the impugned award dated 20th September, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur in F Claim Petition No. 177/2002, if so advised and subject to all

just exceptions including limitation. No costs.

i I I R.li\ Appeals dismissed.
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 354

RAMGOPAL & ANR.

STATE OF M.P. & ANR. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6494 of 2010)

JULY 30, 2010

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s. 320 - Compounding of offences - While issuing notice in an SLP arising out of conviction u/s 326 /PC, it was noticed that though the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement, the offence was a non-compoundable one - HELD: There are several offences under /PC that are currently nano compoundable - These include offences punishable ulss 498-A, 326 etc. of the !PC - Some of such offence can be made compoundable by introducing a suitable amendment in the statute - It would not only relieve the courts of the burden of deciding cases in which the aggrieved parties have

themselves arrived at a settlement, but may also encourage the process of re-conciliation between them - The Law Commission and the Government of India requested to examine all these aspects and take such steps as may be considered feasible - Legislation - Suggestions given by Court as to making certain more offences as compoundable.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (CRL.) No. 6494 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2009 of the High G Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, Gwalior in Cr.R.

No. 101 O of 2006.

Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the Petitioners.

The following Order of the Court was delivered H 354

RAMGOPAL & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. 355

ORDER A

Delay condoned.

Issue notice.

The petitioners herein were convicted, inter alia, under B Section 326 IPC. We understand that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. However, in view of the fact that the offence mentioned in Section 326 is a non-compoundable offence, we cannot straightway acquit the petitioners the settlement between the parties, notwithstanding. c

There are several offences under the IPC that are currently non-compoundable. These include offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 326 of the IPC. Some of such offence can be made compoundable by introducing a suitable D amendment in the statute. We are of the opinion that the Law Commission of India could examine whether a suitable proposal can be sent to the Union Government in this regard. Any such step would not only relieve the courts of the burden of deciding cases in which the aggrieved parties have themselves arrived at a settlement, but may also encourage the process of re- E conciliation between them. We, accordingly, request the Law Commission and the Government of India to examine all these aspects and take such steps as may be considered feasible.

The Secretary General of this Court shall forthwith send a F copy of this order to the Law Commission of India as well as to the Law Secretary to the Government of India. The Law Secretary is requested to place a copy of this order before the Hon'ble Minister of Law & Justice, Union of India.

R.P.

Special Leave Petition adjourned.
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 690

RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV

STATE OF BIHAR THR. CBI Review Petition (Criminal) No. 352 of 2010

In B (Criminal Appeal No. 960 of 2010)

AUGUST 5, 2010

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND A.K. PATNAfK, JJ.]

C Review:

Petition seeking review of the order of Supreme Court whereby it set aside the order of High Court granting bail to review petitioner - Application for exemption from

0 surrendering also filed - HELD: It is surprising to note that despite cancellation of bail of the accused by the Court, neither the accused has surren.dered nor he has been taken into custody - There is no merit in the review petition as also the application for exemption from surrendering and they are E dismissed accordingly - CBI and Director General of Police, Bihar directed to execute the order of the Court dated May 3, 2010 forthwith and send a compliance report to the Court - Bail - Cancellation of

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition F (Crl.} No. 352 of 2010.

Criminal Appeal No. 960 of 2010.

G Against the Order dated 03.05.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Crl. A.No. 960 of 2010.

Prem Prakash for the Petitioner.

H 690

RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV v. STATE OF 691

BIHAR THR. CBI

The following order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of this Court's order dated May 03, 2010, whereby we have set aside

the impugned judgment and order dated 18.02.2009 granting B bail to the petitioner herein. It was directed that the petitioneraccused Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav be taken into custody forthwith.

An application for exemption from surrendering has also c been filed with this review petition. We are surprised to note that despite cancellation of bail of the accused by this Court, neither the accused has surrendered nor he has been taken into custody.

We have carefully gone through the review petition and the D connected papers as also the application for exemption from surrendering. We do not find any merit therein and they are dismissed accordingly.

The CBI and Director General of Police, Bihar are directed E to execute the order of this Court dated May 03, 2010 forthwith and send a compliance report to this Court within four weeks from today.

R.P.

Review Petition dismissed.
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 702

MUKESH KISHANPURIA

STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3224 of 2010)

MAY 3, 2010

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

C s.438 - Anticipatory bail - Rejected by High Court - HELD: A perusal of order of High Court and also of the record, indicates that there is no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner - However, he may apply for regular bail and also file an application for interim bail, which a,/Jplication

0 shall be decided on the same day on which it is filed.

Bail - Interim bail - HELD: The power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the application for regular bail - This power is inherent in the power to grant bail, particularly, in view of Article E 21 of the Constitution which contemplates that a person should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish prima facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal) F No. 3224 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 26.3.2010 of the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.M. No. 3810 of 2010.

Prashant Kumar (for Ap & J Chambrs) for the Petitioner.

U.U. Lalit (NP), Rishi Maheshwari, Sumit Attri, Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, Suman Jyoti Khaitan for the Respondent.

The following order of the Court was delivered

MUKESH KISHANPURIA v. STATE OF WEST

BENGAL

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2010 of the High Court of

Calcutta whereby the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for B grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein has been rejected.

3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order and also perused the record. We also see no reason to C grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. However, the petitioner may apply for regular bail before the Court concerned and alongwith the said application, he may file an application for interim bail pending disposal of the regular bail application. We have made it clear on a number of D occasions that the power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the regular bail application. This power is inherent in the power to grant bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of Dlndia. We are of the opinion that in view of Article 21 of the E Constitution, a person should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish prima facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent.

5. Hence, if the present petitioner applies for regular bail before the Court concerned, he may also file an application for F interim bail alongwith the same, which application shall be decided on the same day on which it is filed, pending final disposal of the regular bail application.

6. We also make it clear that the Trial Court shall decide the bail application uninfluenced by any observation made by G the High Court in the impugned order.

7. The special leave petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

R.P.

Special Leave Petition disposed of.
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 342

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

G.S. RANDHAWA (Civil Appeal No. 3392 of 2007)

JUNE 3, 2010

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965:

Allotment of plot - Liability of allottee to pay additional price - HELD: In view of the decision of the Court in Smt. Fuljit Kaur* the judgment of the High Court is set aside - The demand notice is upheld -The appellants are entitled to make recovery in accordance with law.

*Smt. Fuljit Kaur vs. state of Punjab & Ors. (201 O] 7 SCR 317, relied on.

Case Law Reference:

(2010] 7 SCR 317 relied on para 2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3392 of 2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2006 of the High F Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 2800 of 1992.

Vijay Hansaria, (A.C.) and Ashok Mathur for the appearing parties.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. We have heard Ms. Rachna Joshi lssar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spite of notice, respondent did not enter appearance. We requested

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. G.S. RANDHAWA 343

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Sti. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel for the respondent, A to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.

' 2. For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of 2004 (Smt. Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided on this date, the appeal stands allowed. Judgment and Order 8 of the High Court dated 06.12.2006 is set aside and the Demand Notice is upheld. The appellant is entitled to make recovery in accordance with law.

RP.

Appeal allowed.
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 344

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

COL. KULDEEP SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 3546 of 2007)

JUNE 3, 2010

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965:

Allotment of plot - Liability of al/ottee to pay additional price - HELD: In view of the decision of the Court in Smt.

Fuljit Kaur* the judgment of the High Court is set aside - The demand notice is upheld - The appellants are entitled to make recovery in accordance with law.

*Smt. Fuljit Kaur vs. state of Punjab & Ors. [201 O] 7 SCR 317, relied on.

Case Law Reference:

[2010] 7 SCR 317 relied on para 2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3546 of 2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2006 of the High F Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 18110 of 1991.

Vijay Hansaria, (A.C.) and Ashok Mathur for the appearing parties.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. We have heard Ms. Rachna Joshi lssar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spite of notice, respondent did not enter appearance. We requested

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. COL. KULDEEP 345

SINGH [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Sh. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel for the respondent, A to assist the Court as Ami.cus Curiae.

2. For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of 2004 (Smt. Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided on this date, the appeal stands allowed. Judgment and Order 8 of the High Court dated 06.12.2006 is set aside and the Demand Notice is upheld. The appellant is entitled to make recovery in accordace with law.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.