Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 148 and 436 — conviction and sentence under — appeal — held the appellants, formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, raided the Harijan colony and set ablaze around 50 dwelling houses of the prosecution party and abused them in the name of their caste — held the involvement of the appellants/accused established beyond reasonable doubt by reliable prosecution witnesses — appeals dismissed.
NDPS Act, 1985 — Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Section 7A — Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 — Rule 12 — conflict on the date of birth shown in the school register and that of the certificate issued by Village Chowkidar — whether Sessions Court and High Court justified in placing reliance on the certificate issued by village Chowkidar to reject the claim of juvenility? — held when the law gives prime importance to the date of birth certificate issued by the school first attended, the genuineness of which is not disputed, there is no question of placing reliance on the certificate issued by the village Chowkidar — held appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident and has to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board — appeal allowed.
NDPS Act, 1985 — Section 8 read with Section 18 and Section 50 — conviction and sentence under — non-compliance of mandatory provision — seizure of 7 kgs. of opium from the appellants — appellants were not apprised about their right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate but consent was sought for their personal search — held if the quantity recovered from the vehicle is excluded, the remaining would not come within the mischief of ‘commercial quantity’ for imposition of such conviction and sentence — conviction order set aside — appeal allowed.
Court Fees Act, 1870 — Article 17(iii) of Schedule II — Court Fees (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1938 — Section 7(iv-A) — whether a suit filed seeking a declaration that a will and a sale deed are void, resulting their cancellation, will fall under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended by the U.P. Amendment or Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 for the purpose of valuation? — held since Section 7(iv-A) of the U.P. Amended Act specifically provides for payment of court fee in case where the suit is for or involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring void or voidable an instrument securing property having money value, Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act shall not be applicable.
Partition suit — whether the recitals in exhibit A1 concerning item No.1 of schedule No. 8 therein discloses a testamentary disposition or a settlement creating vested rights in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 though possession and enjoyment stood deferred until the death of the executants? — held the right, title, interest, possession and ownership of item No.1 of 8th Schedule of Ex.A1 were with the executants and they had the full control and freedom to deal with that property as they liked unlike Schedule Nos. 1 to 6. Therefore, the document in question cannot be construed as a settlement or a gift because there is no provision in the document transferring any interest in immovable property in praesenti in favour of settlees i.e. their sons — judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, confirmed by the High Court, set aside and of the trial Court restored — appeal allowed.
Suit for perpetual injunction — electricity — excessive usage — disconnection notice — plaintiff filed suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the disconnection notice and from disconnecting power supply installed in the premises of the plaintiff — whether the Plaintiff exceeded the sanctioned load as permissible for SIP consumers and whether the Plaintiff was responsible for low load factor as it had not installed the requisite capacitor? — held neither any evidence had been led by the plaintiff to establish that the machinery mentioned in the inspection note to have been found installed in its premises were not so installed or that such machinery was not used or utilized by the plaintiff for manufacture of PVC conduit pipes — no positive stand taken by the plaintiff with regard to the findings of the inspection — the bill for Rs.3,38,378.02 for the period 06.06.1991 to February 1992 was prepared and submitted for payment by the plaintiff in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply in force in the DESU and no infirmity disclosed in any of the actions of the defendant infringing any known right of the plaintiff so as to entitle it to a decree of perpetual injunction as prayed for — appeal dismissed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B — cheating — renewal of fixed deposits in single name — summons issued against accused persons — neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet or in any of the materials collected in the course of investigation any positive role of either of the appellants, i.e., G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora has been disclosed in the matter of renewal and encashment of the fixed deposits. It is not the prosecution case that either of the accused-appellants had authorised or even facilitated any of the aforesaid action, thus, to hold either of the accused- appellants to be, even prima facie, liable for any of the alleged wrongful acts would be a matter of conjecture, hence, the criminal proceeding on the allegations levelled is clearly not maintainable against either of the accused – appellants G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora — held the action of the accused S.K. Khosla in making the endorsement in the Investment Renewal Form of Vyasa Bank prima facie, amount to making of a document with an intention of causing it to be believed that the same was made by or by the authority of the joint account holder Satish Mehra. The said document having contained an endorsement that the FD be altered/renewed in the single name of accused Anita Mehra and the Bank having so acted, prima facie, the commission of offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC, disclosed against the accused S.K. Khosla.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 — conviction and sentence under — appeal — presence of accused appellants along with other accused at the place of occurrence and at the time and date not disputed — some of the accused attacked PW-4 and PW-13 who were present at the spot besides assaulting the deceased in the stomach with sharp weapons resulting in his death — the evidence of PW-4 is found to be self-contradictory and the versions of the two eye-witnesses in so far as the involvement of the accused-appellants is concerned is at variance with each other — the incident of the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence, will not be conclusive and determinative of the liability of the accused for the substantive offence under section 302 with the aid of section 149 IPC — no convincing and consistent evidence of any individual overt act on the part of any of the accused appellants to implicate any or all of them for causing the fatal injuries on the body of the deceased — held it cannot be reasonably inferred that the accused appellants, as members of an unlawful assembly, had any common object to commit the offence of murder of the deceased — conviction of the appellants under Section 147 and 148 of the IPC maintained — acquitted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC — order of the High Court modified — appeals partly allowed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — murder — conviction and sentence under — appeal — accused-appellant murdered his wife while she was sleeping and had run away — accused had been persistently demanding additional dowry from the deceased and had been ill-treating her — deceased was found lying injured in the cot in her own house by PW 3 as well as by PW 5 and the accused was seen fleeing away from the house by PW 3 — the whereabouts of the accused was not known after the incident and after his arrest, the accused made a statement on the basis of which a knife and a blood stained shirt of the accused were recovered — held the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused alone who committed the offence — appeal dismissed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498-A — dowry case — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 239 — application for discharge dismissed — challenged — held the allegations made against the appellants are specific not only against the husband but also against the parents-in-law of the complainant-wife — whether or not those allegations are true is a matter which cannot be determined at the stage of framing of charges — the Courts below, did not commit any mistake in refusing a discharge — appeal dismissed.