Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 406 and 420 — cheating — High Court quashed order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate — challenged — there was no averment in the complaint that intention to deceive on the part of the accused was absent right from the beginning of the negotiation of the transaction — the allegations against the respondent No. 2 do not only pertain to her presence but also about her total silence and connivance with her husband and transfer of property using Power of Attorney — the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the officer who eventually filed the final report and the transfer of the investigation earlier to another officer who had almost completed the investigation and the entire case diary which has been adverted to in detail in the protest petition prima facie makes out a case against the husband and the wife regarding collusion and the intention to cheat from the very beginning, inducing the complainant to handover a huge sum of money to both of them — order passed by the High Court set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law — appeal allowed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 419 and 467 — forgery – impersonation — conviction and sentence under — appeal — prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant cheated by personating as Kewal Krishan and forged two sale deeds, however, neither the appellant received any monetary benefit nor PW-8 suffered any loss — the appellant spent 20 months in jail, therefore, the period already undergone by him is directed to be treated as sentence for the offences under Section 419 and 467 of the IPC — order modified.
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 — Section 3(2)(a) and (b) — Appointment of Upa Lokayukta — whether the views expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka has got primacy while making appointment to the post of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by the Governor of Karnataka ? — held Governor of the State can appoint Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta only on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister — the Chief Justice of the High Court is only one of the consultees and his views have no primacy – Chief Minister has committed an error in not consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court in the matter of appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta — there was no meaningful and effective consultation or discussion of the names suggested among the consultees before advising the Governor for appointment to the post of Upa Lokayukta. The appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiahas Upa Lokayukta, therefore, is in violation of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act — appeals allowed.
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(viii) — atrocities — complaint that there has been a false declaration by the appellant while filing the second writ petition as he suppressed the truth that earlier for the same relief a writ petition had been filed — the Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the complaint on the ground that the High Court had closed the contempt proceedings initiated against the appellant, as well as against respondent no.2, at the instance of respondent no.1 — High Court reversed the said order — appeal — held transfer by the original allottee at initial stage, even if illegal, would not confer any right in favour of the respondent no.1 — the respondent No.1 adopted intimidatory tactics by resorting to revenue as well as criminal proceedings against the appellant without realising that even if the initial transfer by the original allottee was illegal, the land may revert back to the Government, and not to him merely because his father had encroached upon the same — the matter stood closed at the instance of respondent no.1 himself. Therefore, no justification whatsoever to launch criminal prosecution on that basis afresh — order of the Metropolitan Magistrate restored — complaint quashed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 307, 324 read with Section 34 and 149 — murder — attempt to murder — common intention — conviction and sentence under — no inconsistency, much less any material contradiction, in the evidence of PWs 1, 13 and 19 — medical evidence adduced by the PW-16 clearly stated that the internal injuries suffered by the deceased as a result of the assault on the head was ultimately responsible for the death — description of the events by the eyewitnesses would go to show that the attack on the head of the deceased by the two convicted accused were in quick succession — depositions of PW-13, PW-19, and PW-16 clearly transpires that PW-13 suffered several injuries due to the assault committed on him by the members of the unlawful assembly — conviction of the appellants upheld, while, the four acquitted accused also held liable under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC — appeals disposed of.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 read with Sections 148, 149, 301, 307 and 323 — conviction and sentence under — appeals — consistent version of the prosecution witnesses about the occurrence — according to the eye witnesses all the accused could be identified as the incident occurred on a moonlit night and further there was a lantern burning at the door of the house of Rameshwar — injuries sustained by PWs 2, 3 and 4 as well as those suffered by injured Sheela were proved by the prosecution — injuries suffered by accused, though gun shot injuries, have been stated to be simple and superficial injuries. Occurrence of firing inside the house of accused Ram Vishambhar after the main incident was over has been deposed to by the prosecution witnesses with a fair amount of clarity and consistency — appeals dismissed.
Constitution of India — Article 226 — State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 — Rules 50(3), 50(4), 50(9) and 60(2) — violation of — the charged officer before the Inquiring Authority had not co-operated with the inquiry proceedings, thus, the Inquiring Authority was entitled to hold the enquiry ex parte as provided under Rule 68(2)(xix) — the documents produced by the bank, which were not controverted by the charged officer, supports all the allegations and charges levelled against the delinquent officer, therefore, was rightly dismissed from service — impugned judgment of the High Court set aside —appeal allowed.
Income Tax Act, 1961 — whether or not the interest earned by the assessee on the surplus funds invested in fixed deposits with the corporate member banks is exempt from levy of Income Tax, based on the doctrine of mutuality? — (more…)
Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35 L(b) — whether the manufacture and sale of specified goods that do not physically bear a brand name, from branded sale outlets, would disentitle an assessee from the benefit of S.S.I. Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28th February, 1993, as amended from time to time? — held the test of whether the good is branded or unbranded, must not be the physical presence of the brand name on the good, but whether it, as Explanation IX reads, “is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of the person”. Once it is established that a specified good is a branded good, whether it is sold without any trade name on it, or by another manufacturer, it does not cease to be a branded good of the first manufacturer — appeal allowed.
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 32 — claim for depreciation on vehicles — vehicles purchased against direct payment to the manufacturers — as a part of its business, leased out these vehicles to its customers — thereafter had no physical affiliation with the vehicles — Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a higher rate of depreciation — High Court held that the assessee had only financed the transaction, it could not be held to be the owner of the vehicles, and thus, was not entitled to claim depreciation in respect of these vehicles — appeals — the income derived from leasing of the trucks would be business income, or income derived in the course of business, and has been so assessed. The assessee did use the vehicles in the course of its leasing business — the general and specific statements on ownership construe ownership in favour of the lessee, and as the owner, it used the assets in the course of its business, satisfying both requirements of Section 32 of the Act and hence, is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of additions made to the trucks, which were leased out — impugned order of the High Court reversing the decision of the Tribunal set aside — appeals allowed.