|
|
Database updates
Judgments
(1) Saravanan; (2) Sakthivel vs State, Through Inspector of Police, Swamimalai, Thanjavur
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU1. This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Thanjavur made in S.C.No.77 of 2007, whereby these appellants, who have been arrayed as A.1, A.2 stood charged
|
Shashi Goyal vs Union of India and Others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 26 Feb 2008]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, ss. 3(1), 5A, 11(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 167(2); Petition for the annulment of the Detention Order issued with a view to prevent detenu from smuggling goods in future - considering potentiality and propensity of detenu to indulge in such activities in future, detention under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 is essential - had become entitled to statutory bail under s. 167(2) of the Cr.PC as a challan had not been filed within sixty days of his arrest - It would sound the death-knell of the Fundamental Right of personal liberty if preventive detention can be resorted to simply because the State is unable to complete its investigation and present a challan within the statutory period of sixty/ninety days as the case may be - the extent to which a previous Detention Order has affected the thought process of the Detaining Authority is nebulous Detention Order struck down with liberty granted to the Government to pass a fresh order on the same facts if it considers it expedient, necessary and just - Writ petition allowed.
|
Kannan vs State, Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruthani, Thiruvallur
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 26 Feb 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. The accused in Sessions Case No.52 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Court under the SC & ST Act), Chengalpattu, has preferred the present appeal against his conviction for an
|
Balamoni Nagender @ Narender and Another vs State of Andhra Pradesh
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 13 Feb 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYThis appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is preferred by the accused in Sessions Case No.60 of 2002, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of
|
Sudalai vs State, By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli (District)
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Feb 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM1. This appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Third Additional Sessions Division, Tirunelveli dated 6.11.2002 made in S.C.No.8 of 2002, whereby this accused/appellant stood charged
|
J.B.Kumar vs Secretary Labour and Another
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 05 Feb 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HONBLE JUSTICE DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA (CJ)CM No.626, 628/2008 (exemption)Allowed, subject to just exceptions.LPA No.23/2008 and CM Nos.625, 627/20081. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th
|
State Council of Educational Research and Training vs Ravi Dwivedi
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 05 Feb 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA (CJ)1.This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st November, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein. The
|
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and Others vs State of Orissa and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Jan 2008]
Writ petition has been filed highlighting the problems of residents of KBK districts in State of Orissa and seeking directions to prevent starvation deaths and occurance of famines etc - Held, various recommendations made by the NHRC have empowered the people residing in the locality by providing them with land, irrigation facilities and opportunity to live with some dignity - Both the Union of India and State Government co - operated well and with the joint efforts of all concerned, it is stated that a perceptible change has been brought about in the KBK area, which had earlier been termed as a problem beyond redemption - No further directions are required - Petition disposed of.
|
Krishan Pal vs State of Uttar Pradesh
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 16 Nov 2007]
The Order of the Court was as follows :This is third bail application on behalf of accused-applicant Krishan Pal in Case Crime No. 154 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860i034.xml and 3(2)5 of
|
Rajendran vs (1) Commissioner of Police, Chennai; (2) Secretary Government of Tamilnadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
Indian Penal code, 1860, (IPC) ss. 341, 336, 380, 392 and 506(2); Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, s. 3(1)- Constitution - Habaeuscorpus - Whether subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order is sustainable- Whether from single act though consisting of several acts a habit can be attributed to to a person - activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order - Four adverse cases of alike nature - Held, any disorderly behaviour of a person in the public or commission of a criminal offence affect the peace prevailing in the locality and it may also affect law and order but the same need not affect maintenance of public order-There is no material on record to show that the solitary incident of robbery was so great as to disturb normal life of the community in the locality or disturb general peace and tranquillity or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality - non -application of mind by detaining authority - Detention order set aside - Petition Allowed -
|
Mallika vs (1) District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram (District); (2) Secretary To Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
Constitution of India, art. 22(5); Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, ss. 4(1-A), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) - Constitution - Writ of habeaus corpus - Whether inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal -Held, expedition is the rule and delay defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, unexplained delay in the disposal of representation is breach of constitutional rights - Detention order set aside - Petition Allowed.
|
Veera Prakash vs (1) Secretary To Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai; (2) District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram (District)
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
Constitution of India, art. 22(5); Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, ss. 4(1-A), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) - Constitution - Writ of habeus corpus - Whether inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal -Held, expedition is the rule and delay defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, unexplained delay in the disposal of representation is breach of constitutional rights - Detention order set aside - Petition Allowed -
|
Kandan vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By The Secretary To Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai; (2) District Magistrate and District Collector, Vellore (District)
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
Constitution of India, art. 22(5); Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, ss. 4(1-A), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) - Constitution - Writ of habeus corpus - Whether inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal -Held, expedition is the rule and delay defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, unexplained delay in the disposal of representation is breach of constitutional rights - Detention order set aside - Petition Allowed.
|
Thilagavathi vs (1) District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram (District); (2) Secretary To The Government Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
Constitution of India, art. 22(5); Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, ss. 4(1-A), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) - Constitution - Writ of habeus corpus - Whether inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal - Held, expedition is the rule and delay defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, unexplained delay in the disposal of representation is breach of constitutional rights - Detention order set aside - Petition Allowed -
|
Govindan vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai; (2) District Magistrate and District Collector, Vellore (Distric)
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, ss. 3(1), 4(1)(i)(aa) and 4(1-A)(ii) - Constitution - Habeus corpus - Whether the pre determination of mind by sponsoring authority vitiates detention - Held, the sponsoring authority, even before recommending for detention, had falsely represented before the Principal Sessions Judge, which shows the pre-determination of mind on the part of the sponsoring authority- The detaining authority, while passing the order of detention, had failed to take notice of this pre-determined averment made by the sponsoring authority- Detention order set aside - Petition allowed.
|
Munuswamy vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai; (2) District Magistrate and District Collector, Vellore (District), Vellore
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, ss. 3(1), 4(1)(i)(aa) and 4(1-A)(ii) - Constitution - Habeus corpus - Held, the sponsoring authority, even before recommending for detention, had falsely represented before the Principal Sessions Judge, which shows the pre-determination of mind on the part of the sponsoring authority- The detaining authority, while passing the order of detention, had failed to take notice of this pre-determined averment made by the sponsoring authority- Detention order set aside - Petition Allowed.
|
Arumugam vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its Secretary To Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai; (2) Commissioner of Police, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
Constitution of India, art. 22(5); Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, ss. 4(1-A), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) - Constitution - Habeus corpus - Whether inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal - Held, expedition is the rule and delay defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, unexplained delay in the disposal of representation is breach of constitutional rights - Detention order set aside Petition Allowed -
|
Balan vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its Secretary To Government Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai; (2) District Magistrate and District Collector, Vellore (District), Vellore
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 05 Nov 2007]
Constitution of India, art. 22(5); Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, ss. 4(1-A), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) - Constitution - Habeus corpus - Whether non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the fact of discrepancy in arrest and filing FIR vitiates detention- Held, there is no explanation on the part of the detaining authority as to how the crime number came to be mentioned in the arrest report, which was three hours earlier than the lodging of the F.I.R. the police have not filed any affidavit as to how they got the crime number - Petition Allowed -
|
(1) Somerville; (2) Blanco; (3) Henderson; (4) Ralston vs Scottish Ministers
[HOUSE OF LORDS, 24 Oct 2007]
Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 1994, r. 80 - Complaint about the lawfulness of their removal from association - Whether a claim for damages based on breach of a Convention right by a member of the Scottish Executive is subject to the provisions of s. 7(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998?; whether the act of a governor of a prison in making an order under r. 80(1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders (Scotland) Rules 1994 is to be regarded as an act of a member of the Scottish Executive for the purposes of s. 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998?; Whether, where a continuing breach of Convention rights over a period of time is alleged, time begins to run, for the purposes of s. 7(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998, from the first date on which the breach occurs?; Whether want of proportionality is a relevant complaint of unlawfulness at common law?; Whether the First Division erred in adhering to the Lord Ordinary's refusal of the petitioners' motions that the Court inspect the less-heavily redacted documents in respect of which public interest immunity was asserted by the Scottish Ministers? - Order accordingly.
|
Vinod vs State of Maharashtra
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 22 Oct 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : D. D. SINHA1. Heard Shri. Badar, learned Counsel for appellant Vinod in Criminal Appeal No.317/2004, and Shri. Deopujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.2. Criminal Appeal No.317/2004 is
|
Usha vs Indira
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 09 Oct 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE V. RAMKUMAR1. The revision petitioner, who is a lady by name Usha is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 7/2005 of Viyyur Police Station for an offence under S.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
|
Premshanker vs Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 04 Oct 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE V. RAMKUMAR1. The facts unravelled by the various stages of the chequered career of this seemingly interminable case, reveal the shockingly disturbing manner in which an investigation ordered by no
|
Prakash vs State of Maharashtra and Another
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 04 Oct 2007]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. Rule. Heard Finally with consent of parties.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 197300400.xml is filed for quashing the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no.2.3. The Petitioner is
|
Yashwant Singh Chandel vs Madan Mohan Verma and Another
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 26 Sep 2007]
The Order of the Court was as follows :The defendant has filed this Second Appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge by which the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed against the present appellant.The
|
Ravinder Kumar and Ravi vs State
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 25 Sep 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : REVA KHETRAPAL1. Two young boys, the appellants Amit Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, with another young boy named Suman are alleged to have murdered Noor Alam @ Shibu, aged 5 years in the night intervening 9th/10th
|
|