evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
(2015] 4 S.C.R. 341

SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS.

STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

I.A. NO. 6/2015 & I.A.NO. 7/2015

(Civil Appeal Nos.226-22712015)

APRIL 10, 2015

[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, AND

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

Service law: Appointment -Case reported in 2015 (1) SCR 875 - IA - Dismissed as not pressed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A 6 & 7 of 2015.

Civil Appeal No. 226-227 of 2015

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2013 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (KAT) No. 1643 of 2013 and OP (KAT) No. 1861 of 2013.

K. Rajeev for the Appellants.

Roy Abraham, Reena Roy, Chandrani Prasad, Himinder Lal, Jogy Scaria, Apoorv Damodaran, Liz Mathew, Temple Law Firm for the Respondents.

The following order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2015) 4 S.C.R.

I.A. N0.6

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press this I.A. The I.A. is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.

I.A. N0.7

I.A. No.7 is allowed in terms of prayer 'a'.

Devika Gujral I.As disposed of.
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 985

RAMENDRA@ RAMAN DHULDHUE

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

(Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2013)

DECEMBER 10, 2015

[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, J.]

M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 - Retrospective applicability of - Discussed - Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988-s.13(1)(e).

Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2016 (3) SCC 183 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

2016 (3) SCC 183 referred to.

Para 5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07 .2012 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in M. Cr. C.

E No. 4045 of 2012.

Ashok Mathur, Adv., for the Appellant.

• C. D. Singh, Adv., for the Responde"nt.

The Judgment of the Court was delivere.d by

DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The appellant was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade Ill in the Regional Transport Office, Indore.A search was conducted on the residential premises

of the appellant on the allegation that the property was acquired G 'from the ill-gotten money by criminal misconduct as per Section 13(1 )(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. After M.P. Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 (for short, "the Act") came into force, the appellant was brought

985 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2015] 14S.C.R.

A within the ambit of that Act by declaration under Section 5 of the Act.

3. As the factual matrix would reveal, after the declaration, the prosecution filed an application under Section 13(1) for confiscation of the property under Section 15(3). The appellant B protested and filed application for his discharge, but the said application met with non-success. The appellant approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the order passed by the Special Judge. It was contended before the High Court that C the Act could not be made retrospectively applicable inasmuch as it is a substantive law having penal consequence.

4. The High Court, as is manifest from the impugned order, after analyzing the provisions and also keeping in view the

0 concept of confiscation, has not accepted the plea of retrospective applicability of the Act.

5. In our considered opinion, the view expressed by the High Court is infallible in view of the judgment pronounced by us today in Civil Appeal Nos. 6448-6452 of 2011 titled E Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

6. Resultantly, the appeal. being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal dismissed.
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 653

RAM CHARAN SINGH PRAJAPATI

STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No.13726 of 2015)

NOVEMBER 26, 2015

[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 24 - (UP Government) Legal Remembrance's Manual - In view of the c judgment passed in main Civil Appeal No 13727 of 2015, the instant appeal is dismissed - Impugned judgment is upheld.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.

D 13726of2015

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C No. 46350 of 2014 .

Vijay Bahadur Singh, AG, Kapil Sibal, Gaurav Bhatia, AAG., M. R. Shamshad, Ashok Lal, Uday Pratap Singh, ms.

Nida Khan, Shashank Singh, Rajat Singh, Aditya Samaddar, Ahmad S. Azhar, Adit S. Pujari, Monoj Goel, Shuvodeep Roy,

Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Rakesh Mishra for the Appellant.

Aman Lekhi, Colin Gonsalves, Salman Khurshid, Saurabh Lavania, Achintya Dvivedi, Adnan Siddiqui, Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Vaishali Mittal, J. K. Sharma, Ms. Puja Sharma, Ms. Kezho, Satya Mitra, G Pradeep Kumar Mathur, P. K. Jain, Saurabh Jain, P, K, Goswami, S. P. Singh Rathore, Uday Prakash Yadav, Mukesh K. Giri, Rana Ranjit Singh, Vivek Kr. Singh, Rashid Saeed, Shuvodeep Roy, J. M. Sharma, Ajit Sharma, Akshat Sharma,

653 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A Nitin Singh, Rohit Singh Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Ashutosh Dubey, Mahindra Dubey, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, lmtiazAhmed, Mrs.

Naghma lmtiaz, Ms. Amra Moosavi, (For M/s. Equity Lex Associates), ShakilAhmed Syed, DaanishAhmed Syed, Uzmi B Jameel Hussain, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Milan Laskar, Anoop Kumar Shrivastava, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Varun Singh, Vipin Kr. Saxena for the Respondents.

c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. In view of our detailed Judgment passed in main Civil Appeal of 2015 arising out of SLP(C)No.36166 of 2014, this D Appeal stands dismissed. The impugned Judgment is upheld,

but without imposition of costs.

Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed.
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 769

SUSHIL ANSAL

STATE THROUGH CBI

(Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2010)

AUGUST 19, 2015

[ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ]

Sentence/Sentencing - Uphaar cinema case - c Negligence of A 1 and A 2-owners of cinema resulting in death of 59 people - Conviction of accused for offences punishable uls. 304A read withs. 36 and ss. 337 and 338 rw s. 36 IPC- As regards sentencing of the accused, direction issued that accused to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment D for two years - However, in view of the advanced age of the accused and other peculiar facts and circumstances, on payment of Rs. 30 crores each by the accused within three months, sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone - Said amount. would be used on welfare E schemes.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2010

F From the Judgment and Order dr1ted 19.12.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 794 of 2007

WITH

Crl. A. Nos. 598 of 2010

Ram Jethmalani, Gopal Jain, Salman Khurshid, Sr.Advs ..

Vikas Agarwal, Madhukar, Vinay Arora, Sudarshan Singh

Rawat, Sanjay Jain, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy, AnirudhAnand,

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A Somnath Gaur, Ajay Awasthi, Chirag Madan, Ms. P. R. Mala, Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Mnisha Handa, Sanjay Narayan, Ms.

Shabeena Anjuna, Aseem Mehrotra, Abhijat P. Medh, Advs., with them for the Appellant.

K. T. S. Tulsi, Harish N. Salve, Sr.Advs., Jayant K. Mehta, A. Faraz Khan, Ms. Ambika Mehta, Ms. PriyankaAggarwal, Ms. Mandarini Singh, Ms.Aparajita, T.A. Khan, (For B. Krishna Prasad), Advs., with them forthe Respondent.

The following Order of the Court were delivered

ORDER

For the reasons to be recorded hereafter, we direct that A-1 SushilAnsal andA-2 GopalAnsal shall stand sentenced D to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, having regard to advanced age of the accused and other peculiar facts and circumstances, if they pay Rs.30 crores each, i.e. Rs.60 crores, then the sentence will stand reduced to the period already undergone. If they fail to pay the aforestated E amount within a period of three months from today, they shall

undergo the sentence of two years each, excluding the term which they have already undergone.

The aforestated amount shall be given by way of a F demand draft to the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government for setting up a new trauma centre or for upgrading the existing trauma centres of hospitals managed by the Government of

NCT of Delhi.

G Nidhi Jain Appeal disposed of with directions.
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 771

HARSARUP PANWAR

STATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI

(Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2010)

AUGUST 19, 2015

[ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ]

Sentence/Sentencing - Uphaar cinema case - c Negligence of owners of cinema, Divisional Fire Officer-A 15 and others resulting ih death of 59 people - Conviction of A 15 for offences punishable uls. 304A read with s. 36 and ss. 337 and 338 rw s. 36 /PC -As regards sentencing of the accused, direction issued that accused to be sentenced to o undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year - However, in view of the advanced age of the accused, the diseases from which he is suffering and other peculiar facts and circumstances, on payment of Rs. 10 lakhs within three months, sentence to be reduced to the period already E undergone - Said amount would be used on welfare schemes.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 599 of2010

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of2008

 Ram Jethmalani, Gopal Jain, Salman Khurshid, Sr.Advs., G Vikas Agarwal, Madhukar, Vinay Arora, Sudarshan Singh

Rawat, San jay Jain, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy, Anirudh Anand, Somnath Gaur, Ajay Awasthi, Chirag Madan, Ms. P. R. Mala, Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Monisha Handa, Sanjay Narayan, Ms.

H 771

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A ShabeenaAnjuna, Aseem Mehrotra, Abhijat P. Medh, Advs., with them for the Appellant.

K.T.S. Tulsl, Harish N. Salve, Sr.Advs., Jayant K. Mehta, A. Faraz Khan, Ms. Ambika Mehta, Ms. Priyanka Aggarwal, B Ms. Mandarini Singh, Ms. Aparajita, T.A. Khan, (For 8. Krishna

Prasad), Advs., with them for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

For the reasons to be recorded hereafter, we direct that A-15 Harsarup Panwar shall stand sentenced to tJndergo

rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, having regard to advanced age and the diseases from which he is suffering, D and other peculiar facts and circumstances, if he pays Rs.10

lakhs, then the sentence will stand reduced to the period already undergone. If he fails to pay the aforestated amount within three months from today, he shall undergo the sentence of one year, excluding the term which he has already E undergone.

The aforestated amount shall be given by way of a demand draft to the Chief Secretary of De!hi Government for setting up a new trauma centre orfor upgrading the existing F trauma centres of hospitals managed by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

Nidhi Jain Appeal disposed of with directions.