1S.N. DUBE Vs. N.B. BHOIR & ORS.Coram: G.T.NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR12/01/2000Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987, s. 15. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, Rule 15(2) and (3) and Code of Criminal Procedure 1974, s. 164 - Confessions of accused recorded by same police officer who wPartly allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. A-1 was guilty under s. 302 I.P.C. and A-2 to A-6 under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B and 149 I.P.C. A-1 to A-6 were also guilty under s. 3(3) TADA Act. [245-E-F] 1.2. The confessionClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
2STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURINDER MOHAN AND OTHERSCoram: M.B.SHAH, K.T.THOMAS07/02/2000Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Sections 154 to 176 and 200-Cross-examination-Right of-At the time of investigation or inquiry accused does not have any right to cross-ex-amine the witness. Sections 306(4) (a) and 465-Tender of pardon-Cross-eAllowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. At the time of investigation or inquiry for the offence triable by Sessions Court accused persons have no right to cross-examine the approver and non-examination of the approver at that stage would notClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
3RANDHIR BASIL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGALCoram: G.T.NANAVATI. S.N.PHUKAN07/02/2000Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 306(4)-Examination of ap-prover- Proceeding before the Magistrate before the committal order is made is neither an inquiry nor a trial-Plea of approver being examined in open court and not in chamber-Not sustaPartly allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Section 306(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not mandate that approver must be examined in the open court in the presence of the accused and that the accused must be given opportunity to cClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
4STATE OF U.P. Vs. ASHOK DIXIT AND ANR.Coram: G.T.NANAVATI, S.N.PHUKAN16/02/2000Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307-Arms Act-Section 25-Prosecution for offences-Material omissions-Eye witnesses not reli-able-Acquittal, held, sustainable. The respondents-accused were convicted for offences u/s. 302 and 307 Indian PenaDismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. There were material omissions which were fatal for the prosecution. PW 2 stated that accused A was related and regular visitor to the house of deceased but accused-C was not know to him earlier. TherClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
5MAHMOOD AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHARCoram: G.T. NANAVATI , Y.K. SABHARWAL16/02/2000Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 396 and 412-9 Persons accused for committing dacoity-Trial Court acquitted 4 accused as testimony of eye witnesses found unreliable and untrustworthy-Upheld by the High Court-On appeal by 3 of the 5 convicted persoAllowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. All the 9 accused were involved in one incident and were charged which the offence of dacoity and murder. The Trial Court noticed that possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
6M/S. MEDCHL CHEMICALS & PHARMA P. LTD. Vs. M/S. BIOLOGICAL E. LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENTSCoram: G.B.PATTANAIK, U.C.BANERJEE25/02/2000Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 482-Criminal proceedings initiated for breach of con-tract- Proceedings quashed by High Court holding that complaint did not disclose any offence-On appeal Held, jurisdiction of High Court is limited andAllowing the appeal and restoring the criminal proceedings, this Court HELD: 1. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed isClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
7G.V. RAO Vs. L.H.V. PRASAD & ORS.Coram: D.P.Wadha, S.S.Ahmad06/03/2000Indian Penal Code, I860 : S.415-Cheating-Complainant alleging that he was induced to marry a girl of Scheduled Tribe on the misrepresentation that she belonged to forward community-High Court quashing the proceedings holding that the section reDelivering the judgment with reasons, this Court HELD : 1.1. The High Court was not correct in its interpretation of provisions contained under s.415, IPC. While the first part of the defini- tion of `cheating' relates to property; the second paClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
8ARIVAZHAGAN Vs. STATE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICECoram: K.T. THOMAS, M.B. SHAH08/03/2000Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 243(1)-Scope of. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : Sections 13(1 )(c) and 22. Criminal Trial-Accused-Defence witnesses-Liberty to produce-Ex-tent of-List of witnesses-Object and purpose of-AccusDisposing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The pruning exercise undertaken by the trial court and the High Court was within the limits permitted by law. [164-B] 2. The purpose of furnishing a list of witnesses and documents to the Court beforClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
9STATE OF HARYANA Vs. NAURATTA SINGH AND ORS.Coram: K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA10/03/2000Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 428, 432, 433-A. Sentence-Remission of-Instructions issued by Govt. of Haryana- Applicability of. Accused-Conviction for murder-Life imprisonment-Period during, which accused remained on bail underAllowing the appeal, this Court HELD 1. That part of the impugned judgment by which the Single Judge directed remission to be granted in respect of the period during which respondent was released on bail is set aside. [254-E] 2. The instructClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
10SURENDRA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.Coram: RUMA PAL, D.P.WADHWA27/03/2000Indian Penal Code, 1860 : S.314/34-Common intention-Death caused while causing miscarriage of victim with child-Accused having illicit relations with victim-Three months pregnancy-Accused taking victim to clinic of an Electro Homoeopathy prac-Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. There is no reason not to take into consideration the extra judicial confession of the appellant made to mother of the deceased to base his conviction. It was quite natural in the circumstances. It wClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
11KOTHAKALAVA NAGA SUBBA REDDI AND OTHERS. Vs. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P.Coram: K.T. THOMAS, M B SHAH.28/03/2000Indian Penal Code, I860 : Ss.148 and 302/149-Murder-Attack on victim by 6 persons armed with deadly weapons-Death of victim-Trial Court not believing the evidence of eyewitnesses-Ordered acquittal of all accused-High Court re-appreciat-ing theDismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The High Court was fully justified in reversing the acquittal order passed by the Sessions Judge whose approach in appreciat-ing the evidence of the material witnesses was absolutely unreasonable andClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
12STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. N. K. ACCUSEDCoram: S.N.VARIAVA, R.C.LAHOTI30/03/2000Indian Penal Code, I860 : Section 376-Offence under-Delay in lodging FIR satisfactorily ex-plained- Testimony of prosecutrix corroborated by another witness and Medi-cal Evidence-Delay in medical examination-Absence of injuries on the body of tAllowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. High Court was not justified in reversing the conviction of the respondent and recording the order of acquittal. It is true that the golden thread which runs throughout the cob-web of criminal jurispru-dClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
13NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANACoram: R.P.SETHI, G.B.PATTANAIK30/03/2000Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sect ion 299(1)-Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 33-Deposition of witnesses in absence of accused-Admissi-bility of- The procedure under Section 299 being exception to the principle embodied in Section 33, it is necDismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. The argument that pre-condition of section 299 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with, cannot be sustained. The statements under section 299 could be treated as evidence, since the High Court did record aClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
14THE STATE OFKAMATAKA Vs. KRTSFINAPPACoram: R.C.LAHOTI, S.N.VARIAVA30/03/2000Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376(2)(Proviso)-Reduction in sen-tence-Rape committed on an 8 year old girl-Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 3000-High Court confirmed conviction but reduced senAllowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Section 376 IPC shows that the legislative mandate is to impose a sentence, for the offence of rape on a girl under 12 years of age, for a term which shall not be less thatn 10 years, but, it may extenClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
15HRIDAYA RANGAN PD. VERMA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.Coram: K.T. THOMAS , D.P. MOHAPATRA31/03/2000Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Inherent powers- Exercise of- Held, the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice-Held fAllowing the appeals, this Court. HELD : 1. The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised 'very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.' The extraordinary power under Article 226 of the ConstClick here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement

Comments