Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: J S Verma And S P Bharucha, Jj Act Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Sections 5, 12 Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act Conviction Under Section 12 Of The T D A Act By Designated Court Legality Sentence Modification Of Arms Act 1959 Section 25 1 B A Offence Under Conviction By Designated Court U S 12 Of The T D A Act Legality Of Sentence Modification Of Interpretation Of Statutes Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Section 5 Arms And Ammunition Construction Headnote On 7 4 1988, The Police Apprehended The Appellant On The G T Road On Suspicion, And He Was Found Carrying A 12 Bore Country Made Pistol Without Licence Or Permit The District Magistrate Issued Sanction For Prosecuting The Appellant For An Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act, 1959 The Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ordered That As The Case Should Be Tried By The Designated Court Under Section 5 Of The Terrorist And Distruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 The Case Was Transferred To The Additional Judge, The Designated Court, For Trial, Charging The Appellant For The Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act, 1987 The Appellant Pleaded Not Guilty The Designated Judge Found That The Prosecution Had Brought Home The Offence To The Appellant Beyond Reasonable Doubt And The Appellant Was Convicted Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act And Sentenced To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Five Years And To Pay A Fine Of Rs 200 Or, In Default, To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For A Further Period Of Three Months Against The Judgment And Order Of The Designated Court, The Present Appeal Was Filed The Appellant Contended That The Prosecution Itself Did Not Consider The Case Against Him To Be A Fit Case To Frame A Charge And Proceed Under The T A D A Act, 1987 And That It Was, Therefore, Not Proper To Try And Convict Thereunder That A Country Made Pistol Fell Outside The Ambit Of The Category Iii A, Of Schedule I To The Arms Rules, 1962 That Section 5 Of The T A D A Act, 1987 Applied Only When A Person Was In Possession Arms And Ammunition And That The Provisions Of Section 5 Of The T A D A Act Did Not Apply To The Appellant The Respondent State Submitted That The Prosecution Ha

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:PARAS RAM Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT20/10/1992 BENCH:[J.S. VERMA AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] ACT:Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Sections 5, 12-Offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act- Conviction under Section 12 of the T.D.A. Act by Designat...

Judges: J S Verma And S P Bharucha, Jj Act Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Sections 5, 12 Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act Conviction Under Section 12 Of The T D A Act By Designated Court Legality Sentence Modification Of Arms Act 1959 Section 25 1 B A Offence Under Conviction By Designated Court U S 12 Of The T D A Act Legality Of Sentence Modification Of Interpretation Of Statutes Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Section 5 Arms And Ammunition Construction Headnote On 7 4 1988, The Police Apprehended The Appellant On The G T Road On Suspicion, And He Was Found Carrying A 12 Bore Country Made Pistol Without Licence Or Permit The District Magistrate Issued Sanction For Prosecuting The Appellant For An Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act, 1959 The Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ordered That As The Case Should Be Tried By The Designated Court Under Section 5 Of The Terrorist And Distruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 The Case Was Transferred To The Additional Judge, The Designated Court, For Trial, Charging The Appellant For The Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act, 1987 The Appellant Pleaded Not Guilty The Designated Judge Found That The Prosecution Had Brought Home The Offence To The Appellant Beyond Reasonable Doubt And The Appellant Was Convicted Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act And Sentenced To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Five Years And To Pay A Fine Of Rs 200 Or, In Default, To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For A Further Period Of Three Months Against The Judgment And Order Of The Designated Court, The Present Appeal Was Filed The Appellant Contended That The Prosecution Itself Did Not Consider The Case Against Him To Be A Fit Case To Frame A Charge And Proceed Under The T A D A Act, 1987 And That It Was, Therefore, Not Proper To Try And Convict Thereunder That A Country Made Pistol Fell Outside The Ambit Of The Category Iii A, Of Schedule I To The Arms Rules, 1962 That Section 5 Of The T A D A Act, 1987 Applied Only When A Person Was In Possession Arms And Ammunition And That The Provisions Of Section 5 Of The T A D A Act Did Not Apply To The Appellant The Respondent State Submitted That The Prosecution Ha

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:SHREE CHAMUNDI MOPEDS LTD.Vs. RESPONDENT:CHURCH OR SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSN. CSI CINODSECRETARIAT, MADR DATE OF JUDGMENT29/04/1992 BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.CITATION:1992 AIR 1439 1992 SCR (2) 999 1992 SCC (3) 1 JT 1992 (3) 98 1...

Judges: J S Verma And S P Bharucha, Jj Act Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Sections 5, 12 Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act Conviction Under Section 12 Of The T D A Act By Designated Court Legality Sentence Modification Of Arms Act 1959 Section 25 1 B A Offence Under Conviction By Designated Court U S 12 Of The T D A Act Legality Of Sentence Modification Of Interpretation Of Statutes Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Section 5 Arms And Ammunition Construction Headnote On 7 4 1988, The Police Apprehended The Appellant On The G T Road On Suspicion, And He Was Found Carrying A 12 Bore Country Made Pistol Without Licence Or Permit The District Magistrate Issued Sanction For Prosecuting The Appellant For An Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act, 1959 The Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ordered That As The Case Should Be Tried By The Designated Court Under Section 5 Of The Terrorist And Distruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 The Case Was Transferred To The Additional Judge, The Designated Court, For Trial, Charging The Appellant For The Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act, 1987 The Appellant Pleaded Not Guilty The Designated Judge Found That The Prosecution Had Brought Home The Offence To The Appellant Beyond Reasonable Doubt And The Appellant Was Convicted Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act And Sentenced To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Five Years And To Pay A Fine Of Rs 200 Or, In Default, To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For A Further Period Of Three Months Against The Judgment And Order Of The Designated Court, The Present Appeal Was Filed The Appellant Contended That The Prosecution Itself Did Not Consider The Case Against Him To Be A Fit Case To Frame A Charge And Proceed Under The T A D A Act, 1987 And That It Was, Therefore, Not Proper To Try And Convict Thereunder That A Country Made Pistol Fell Outside The Ambit Of The Category Iii A, Of Schedule I To The Arms Rules, 1962 That Section 5 Of The T A D A Act, 1987 Applied Only When A Person Was In Possession Arms And Ammunition And That The Provisions Of Section 5 Of The T A D A Act Did Not Apply To The Appellant The Respondent State Submitted That The Prosecution Ha

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:MRS. PAYAL ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL Vs. RESPONDENT:CAPT. ASHOK KUMAR JINDAL DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1992 BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) KANIA, M.H. (CJ) CITATION:1992 SCR (3) 81 1992 SCC (3) 116 JT 1992 (4) 28 1992 SCALE (1)1079 ACT:Family Court’s Act, 1984 : Section 10. Hin...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302 Read With 34, 201 Dowry Death Husband And Mother In Law Charged With Convicted And Sentenced To Life Imprisonment High Court Acquitting Both The Accused Giving Them Benefit Of Doubt Mother In Law Convicted U S 201 And Sentenced Participis Criminis Circumstances Clearly Showing Both The Accused Participating In The Crime Acquittal Set Aside And Conviction And Sentence Of Both The Accused Restored Conviction And Sentence Of Mother In Law U S 201 Affirmed Headnote The Appellant Accused And Her Son Were Charged With Offences Under S 302 Read With S 34 Ipc Or Alternatively Under S 306 Read With S 34 I P C For Causing The Death Of, Or Abetment To Cause Suicide By, The Daughter In Law Wife Of The Accused According To The Prosecution, It Was A Case Of Dowry Death The Dead Body Was Found In A Completely Burnt Condition In The Matrimonial House Of The Deceased The Trial Court Convicted Both The Accused Under S 302 Ipc Read With S 34 Ipc And Sentenced Them To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Life On Appeal The High Court Acquitted Both The Mother And Son Of Their Offences Under S 302 Read With S 34 Ipc But Convicted The Mother Under S 201 Ipc And Sentenced Her To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Five Years The State Preferred An Appeal Against The Acquittal And The Convicted Accused Preferred An Appeal Against Her Conviction And Sentence On Behalf Of The Appellant Accused It Was Contended That The Deceased Either Committed Suicide Or Died Due To Fire Accident That The Husband Of The Deceased Was Not Present At The Time Of Occurrence And That The Mother In Law Was Entitled To Acquittal Under S 201 Ipc Allowing The Appeal By The State And Dismissing The Appeal By The Accused, This Court, Held 1 There Is No Inconsistency In The Evidence Of The Post Mortem Doctor And The Forensic Doctor, Who Minutely Examined All The Factual Details And Came To The Finding That The Death Was Due To Asphexia This Finding Has Been Accepted By The Trial Court As Well As The High Court Thus There Is No Conflict Of Medical Opinions To Extend The Benefit Of Doubt To The Accused 32 D E State Delhi Admn V Gulzarilal Tandon, Air 1979 Sc 1982, Distinguished 2 The Conduct Of The Appellant Accused As Evidenced B

16 October, 1992·PETITIONER:SAROJINI AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT16/10/1992 BENCH:[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] ACT:Indian Penal Code, 1860:Sections 302 read with 34, 201-Dowry death-Husband and mother-in-law charged with-Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment-High Cour...

Judges: D Thommen, R Sahai

16 October, 1992·ORDER Dr. T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Heard counsel on both sides. From the facts stated by the Tribunal and found by the authorities, it appears to be beyond doubt that the plant and machinery had been purchased subsequent to the date of devaluation of Indian currency which occurred on June 6, 1966. It ...

Judges: L M Sharma, S Mohan, S Bharucha

16 October, 1992·ORDER Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh arises out of a writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, a medical graduate, for a direction to the petitioners to make an appointment of a Reader in Ophthalmology against an existing vacancy an...

Judges: M Venkatachaliah, G Ray

16 October, 1992·1. The Union of India has moved these two applications in the two disposed of appeals. The applications relate to the administration of what may be referred to as the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Settlement Fund, now held with the Reserve Bank of India in the name of the Registrar of the Supreme Court o...

Judges: K Singh, P Sawant

16 October, 1992·1. This appeal has arisen from the order of the High Court dated March 15, 1974 dismissing in default the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner to set aside an award given in the arbitration proceedings. The application for restoration of the petition was also dismissed by the High Court on Apr...

Judges:

16 October, 1992·1. This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh arises out of and is against the Order dated 14-5-1986 made by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 2812 of 1981 quashing the Orders dated 28th April 1981 and 21st February 1984 of the Conservator of Forests and the Chief Conservator of Forest...

Judges: L M Sharma, S Mohan, S Bharucha

15 October, 1992·ORDER S.P. Bahrucha, J.1. Leave to appeal granted.2. The first respondent to this appeal filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to implement a select list prepared on the basis of certain orders and to appoint the candidates upon th...