– Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 307, 109, 120-B/34–Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, Section 3(1) read 2(e), 3(2) read with Section 120-B–Arms Act, Section 3 & 7, Section 25(1A), 25(1B)–Murder–Death sentence–Rarest of rare case-If a person is sentenced to imprisonment, even if it be for life, and subsequently it is found that he was innocent and was wrongly convicted, he can be set free. Of course, the imprisonment that he has suffered till then cannot be undone and the time he has spent in the prison cannot be given back. Such a reversal is not possible where a person has been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. The execution of the sentence of death in such cases makes miscarriage of justice irrevocable. It is a finality which cannot be corrected.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 153 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal Nos. 85-86 of 2006…
Forensic– Gun Shot Injury–Cartridge of .303 bore can be fired from .315 bore weapon–High Court, therefore, conscious of the fact that in an appeal against acquittal, interference should be minimal and that too in case of perversity of the judgment of the trial Court, held that the finding were indeed perverse and accordingly reversed the judgment of acquittal–Appeal dismissed
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 150 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of…
General Clauses Act, S.10–ServiceLaw–Computation of time– Medical Certificate–Last Date of Submission–Appellant did not obtain the medical certificate on 14th April as being a gazetted holiday & the previous days were also holidays–His application should have been considered on merit.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 147 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Civil Appeal No. 8200 of…
Withdrawal of Suit–Trial court dismissed the suit for partition as withdrawn–In terms of order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the privilege of the plaintiff alone to withdraw the plaint at any stage of the proceedings and the appellant being only one of the defendants having played the fraud in getting the suit dismissed as withdrawn, has no locus to object to the restoration of the suit.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 143 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal Civil Appeal No. 8407 of…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 11A & 6–Land Acquisition–Objections–Notification and the declaration of the acquisition proceedings challenged after the expiry of the period of 2 years–Interim order was passed for four weeks, the same interim order was made final until further orders–Cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to expiry of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act relating to the acquired lands–Two years from the date of declaration must be computed after excluding the period when parties had approached the court and obtained interim stay of such acquisition notices
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 137 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Civil Appeal No. 8235 of…
Arbitration–If one party demands appointment of an arbitrator and the other party does not appoint any Arbitrator within thirty days of such demand, the right to appointment at the instance of one of the parties does not get automatically forfeited
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 133 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Civil Appeal No. 8230 of 2009…
Central Civil Services Rules, 1965, Rule 10, Sub-rule 6 and 7–Suspension–Delay in reviewing suspension order–suspension of the respondent not extended–Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the suspension order of the respondent as became invalid on the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension–High Court affirmed the orders of the Tribunal–Appeal–Held, that after the operation of Sub-rule 6 of Rule 10, since the review not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days as neither was there any review nor extension within the said period
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 130 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6661…
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 45 and 47–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 432, 433 and 433A–Premature release–Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases–A convict awarded life sentence has to undergo imprisonment for at least 14 years–While Sections 432 and 433 empowers the appropriate Government to suspend, remit or commute sentences, including a sentence of death and life imprisonment, a fetter has been imposed by the legislature on such powers by the introduction of Section 433A into the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Amending Act of 1978, which came into effect on and from 18th December, 1978–By virtue of the non-obstante clause used in Section 433A, the minimum term of imprisonment in respect of an offence where death is one of the punishments provided by laws or where a death sentence has been commuted to life sentence, has been prescribed as 14 years.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 125 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4614…
Service Law–Backwages–Respondent was appointed as a Constable in PAC (Provincial Armed Constabulary)–He was convicted in a criminal case–Therefore, his services were terminated–Later , respondent acquitted from the charges of the Criminal case–Respondent filed writ petition for his reinstatement which was allowed by Single Judge–Respondent accepted that he would not be entitled for back wages–Fact that the respondent would not be entitled to back ages accepted by the respondent–Appeal deserves to be disposed of with clarification that the respondent would not be entitled to back wages–Appellants not been directed by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench to pay back wages to the respondent–Clarified that the respondents would not be entitled to back wages at all
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 124 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 2816 of 2007…
High Court held that the transfers not effected by the provisions of Section 47 and 50B of the 1950 Act and observed that the original plaintiff had lost his possession in the land when he executed the agreement for sale and made over possession of the lands in question to the intending purchaser–Appeal against–Plaintiffs at no point of time objected to the Agreement for Sale despite the same being adverse to their interest–High Court, correctly held that the possession of the defendants was adverse to the interests of the plaintiff—No interference to the impugned judgment of the High Court called for.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 121 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24089…