31	STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. GITA RAM	Coram: K.T. THOMAS, J., R.P. SETHI, J.	08/09/2000	Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989: Sections 14 & 2(l)(d)-Sessions Court designated as Special Court for trial of offences under the Act-Such specified Special Court not denuded of its character and powers as a	Setting aside the impugned judgment and remitting the appeal back to the High Court for disposal on merits, this Court. HELD : 1. A Court of Session specified as a Special Court for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Trib	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
32	HUKAM SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN	Coram: K.T. THOMAS, J., R.P. SETHI, J.	14/09/2000	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 226, 231, 313, 379- During the course of trial, Public Prosecutor not examining the only two independent witnesses having learnt that those two witnesses would speak against the prosecution version-Proprie	Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The role played by each of the appellants can be discerned with reasonable degree of certainty. Starting with their convergence at the bus stop, presumably waiting for the return of the deceased after	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
33	BASAVARAJ R. PATIL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS	Coram: S.N.VARIAVA, K.T.THOMAS	11/10/2000	Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 313(2)- Questioning of the accused in a warrant case-After closing of evidence by prosecution-Held (per Majority), can be dispensed with on request by accused-Principles laid down for such exempti	Disposing of the Appeal, the Court HELD : (Per Thomas, J. for himself and Variava, J.) 1. The word "shall" in clause (b) to Section 313(1) Cr.P.C. is to be interpreted as obligatory on the Court and it should be complied with when it is for	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
34	STATE BY C.B.I. NEW DELHI Vs. R. SURI BABU AND ANR.	Coram: K.T. THOMAS , R.P. SETHI	17/10/2000	Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : Sections 7, 12, 13(l)(d) and 13(2). Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 120-B. Accused-Offences committed under Prevention of Corruption Act, and I.P.C.- Trial Court found sufficient evidence to frame ch	Appeal by C.B.I, before Supreme Court-Pursuant to views expressed by Supreme Court regarding the consequence of dealing with a petition filed by the accused for discharging them and the dangers involved for either side if this Court is to reach an	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
35	SHAMSHER KHAN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)	Coram: K.T. THOMAS , R.P. SETHI	19/10/2000	Criminal Law : Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 299. 304 and 308-Manufacture and stocking of bombs in a house clandestinely-Explosion of bombs during manufacture- Conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder- Held, on facts, there i	Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The act of the appellant proved to have been committed along with the other person who died in the explosion in manufacture of explosive substance like bombs. If some other act had intervened which th	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
36	SHRI ABDUL KARIM Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.	Coram: Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.	07/11/2000	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 321-Prosecution-Withdrawal from-Application of mind- By court- Before grant of consent-Application of Public Prosecutor (PP)- Requirements of-Popular film actor kidnapped by Veerappan and his associates-	Allowing the appeals and the writ petitions, the Court HELD : (Per Bharucha, J. for himself, and Mohapatra, J) 1.1. Though the Government may have ordered, directed or asked a Public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution, it is for the Public	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
37	ABDUL KARIM ETC. ETC. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS ETC. ETC.	Coram: S.P. BHURACHA, D.P. MOHAPATRA.	07/11/2000	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 321-Prosecution-Withdrawal from-Application of mind- By court- Before grant of consent-Application of Public Prosecutor (PP)- Requirements of-Popular film actor kidnapped by Veerappan and his associates-	Allowing the appeals and the writ petitions, the Court HELD : (Per Bharucha, J. for himself, and Mohapatra, J) 1.1. Though the Government may have ordered, directed or asked a Public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution, it is for the Public	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
38	STATE OF U.P. Vs. HARI MOHAN & ORS.	Coram: K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI	07/11/2000	Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 34 and 201-Murder-Applicability of circumstantial evidence in conviction of accused when there is no direct evidence-Held, the circumstantial evidence should be consistent with the guilt of th	Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. There is no direct evidence connecting any of the accused with the commission of the crime. The case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. It is often said that witnesses may	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
39	MURALI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU	Coram: U.C.BANERJEE, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN	14/11/2000	Practice & Procedure-Criminal Appeal-Notice of appeal restricted to question of Sentence only-Subsequently special leave granted-Appellant contending unfettered leave granted-Held, leave granted limited to question of sentence only. Penal Code,	Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The Court directed issuance of notice limited to the question of sentence only. Subsequently, by reason of the objection Court was pleased to grant special leave in the matter. The Leave, as granted by	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
40	STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. SUNIL AND ANOTHER	Coram: K.T.THOMAS, R.P.SETHI	29/11/2000	Criminal Law Penal Code 1860-Sections 364, 376, 377 and 302 read with Section 34- Respondents charged for kidnapping, rape and murder of four year old- Sessions Court convicting the Respondents on the basis of autopsy report and evidence of (PW	Allowing the Appeal, the Court HELD : 1. Though there are discrepancies between the evidence of PWs 8, 10 and 12, there is no discrepancy worth quoting for consideration as they are immaterial. Such discrepancies are common features in the testi	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
41	GURA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN	Coram: K.T.THOMAS, R.P.SETHI	06/12/2000	Penal Code, 1872-Section 302-Conviction of-Prosecution's case based on extra judicial confession-All witnesses closely related to the appellant- Confession made immediately after the occurrence and not procured under any undue influence, coercion	Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD : 1.1. Extra-judicial confession, if true and voluntary can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent weakness of extra judicial confession a	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
42	LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.	Coram: M.B.SHAH, S.N.PHUKAN	09/01/2001	Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section 3(2) and 3(3)-Offences under-Nature of-Conviction under-Held, an accused can be convicted under Section 3(3) without convicting any other accused under Section 3(2)-Section 3 (3) c	Dismissing the appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and partly allowing the appeals of Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 20, the Court HELD : 1. For convicting the accused under Section 3(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, it i	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
43	IN THE MATTER OF 'K' A JUDICIAL OFFICER Vs. IN THE MATTER OF 'K' A JUDICIAL OFFICER	Coram: DR. A.S. ANAND CJ , R.C. LAHOTI	08/02/2001	Judicial Restraint : Judicial order-Remarks against subordinate Judge by Court of superior jurisdiction-judicial restraint and discipline-Need for emphasised-Held, a judge is not expected to indulge in criticising the conduct of the subordinate	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Metropolitan Magistrate in initiating contempt proceedings and taking cognisance of substantive offences under the Indian Penal Code against the officials of Public Works Department was not properly advise	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
44	DAYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA	Coram: M.B. SHAH, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN.	20/02/2001	Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 & 307-Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act. 1987-Sections 3 & 5-Conviction under Sustainability of- Identification of the appellant by two eye-witnesses during trial Failure of other eye-witnesses to identi	Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of `H' and his wife `J' when they identified the accused out of 14 persons, who were facing the trial. Their evidence is cogent and consistent with regar	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
45	PRAHLAD SINGH BHATI Vs. N.C.T., DELHI & ANR.	Coram: K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI.	23/03/2001	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 436, 437, 438 and 439. Bail-Principles governing grant of--Offences triable exclusively by Court of Sessions-Bail for-Power of Magistrate to grant bail in such of-fences- Scope of. A case under Sect	Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Court HELD : 1. Despite the involvement of important questions of law, the High Court failed in its obligation to adjudicate the pleas of law raised before it and dismissed the petiti	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement