|
 Supreme
Court Judgments - June 2007 |
State of Haryana v Surender and Others
01/06/2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302, 394 r/w
397 - conviction under - sentenced for ten years and to pay fine - no
evidence of service of notice on the appellant - High Court disposed of
the matter ex parte |
Sukhdev Singh v State of Haryana
01/06/2007
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985, s. 18 - Appeal against conviction - sentenced for ten years and to
pay fine - no evidence of service of notice on the appellant - High
Court disposed of the matter ex parte |
State of Madhya Pradesh v Nisar
04/06/2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302 - Appeal
against acquittal - the High Court was perfectly justified in finding
the prosecution version vulnerable, and the evidence scanty to fasten
the guilt on the accused in a case where the prosecution version rests
on circumstances evidence - Dismissed |
State of Rajasthan v Babu Ram
05/06/2007
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act,
1985, ss. 17, 18 - High Court directed acquittal on the ground that
there was non-compliance of mandatory requirement of s. 50 - Appeal
against - What is the meaning of the words "search any person" occurring
in s. 50(1) |
Om Prakash v State (Nct) of Delhi
05/06/2007
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,
ss. 7(1) r/w 16 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - learned
Additional Sessions Judge held that the commutation of sentence under
Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.)
was a matter within the discretion of State Government - This Court
directs that a sum of Rs.7,500/-, as fine, be deposited within a period
of six weeks from today. The appellant shall move the appropriate
Government for commutation of the custodial sentence - accused to remain
on bail in the mean time. |
State of Haryana v Suresh
05/06/2007
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985, s. 18 - Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused but High
Court acquitted on the ground that there was non-compliance with the
mandatory requirements of s. 50 - Appeal against acquittal - matter
remitted to the High Court to hear the appeal afresh on grounds other
than that of alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, which,
as noted above, has no application to the facts of the case |
Ananta Deb Singha Mahapatra and Others v State of
West Bengal 06/06/2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 304 part II
r/w 149 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - in order to find
whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries
received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the
injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused
had time to have recourse to
- Leave granted. |
State of Rajasthan v Wakteng
07/06/2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302 r/w 34, 324
r/w 34 - Trial Court convicted appellant - High Court set aside
conviction and directed acquittal - Appeal against - though conviction
can be raised solely on the dying declaration without any corroboration
the same should not be suffering from any infirmity - the High Court has
rightly held that the prosecution has failed to establish the
accusations against the respondent. |
Ashok Pandey v K. Mayawati and Others
13/06/2007
Constitution of India, 1950, art. 32;
Prohibition of Simultaneous Membership Rules, 1950 - the grievance is
that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not qualified to be appointed as Chief
Minister and Minister respectively as they were members of the Rajya
Sabha and thus disqualified under Article 164(4) read with Article
164(1) of the Constitution. The basic stand is that since they were
members of Rajya Sabha the requirement of their being elected to the
State Legislative Assembly within a period of 6 months does not apply to
them as they are already legislators of the Rajya Sabha
- Dismissed |
State of Madhya Pradesh v Sewa Singh
13/06/2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 304 Part II -
Appeal against acquittal - the judgment of acquittal passed by the High
Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. |
Niranjan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh
14/06/2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 392, 397 -
Section 397 IPC was rightly applied in this case - the question
whether the accused attempted to cause death or grievous hurt would
depend upon the factual scenario - In the instant case knife blow was
given on the chest just below the nipple. - Held That High Court
was right in its view about the applicability of Section 397 IPC.
- Dismissed |
Daya Ram v Raghunath and Others
15/06/2007
U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 - Allotment of land to respondent
no.1 cancelled - Writ petition filed by the respondent allowed by...-
Leave granted |
Kishori Lal v State of Madhya Pradesh
19/06/2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 306 - Appeal against conviction and sentence
- Held, offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence... |
State of Maharashtra and Others v Mehamud
19/06/2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities
of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act , 1981 - District... |
State of Rajasthan vs Chittarmal
21/06/2007
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - High Court
altered conviction of the respondent from one punishable under s. 302 to
s. 304A - Appeal against - Held, in order to be encompassed by the
protection under s. 304A there should be neither intention nor knowledge
to cause death - When any of these two elements is found to be present,
s. 304A has no application - Prosecution has not been able to establish
the accusation under s. 302 and the High Court rightly convicted the
accused under s. 304A - Appeal dismissed. |
|
|
 |
Lawyers
Directory:
Delhi
-
Delhi-2 -
Kolkata -
Mumbai -
Mumbai-2 -
Chennai -
Bangalore -
Hyderabad -
Allahabad -
Pune -
Ahmedabad -
Nagpur -
Cochin -
Gurgaon -
Jaipur -
Ludhiana -
Thane -
Noida -
Indore -
Lucknow -
Ghaziabad
Chandigarh |
|
|
|