//
archives

Ananga Kumar Patnaik

This tag is associated with 8 posts

Police case under sec.498 A and 306 I.P.C. ended in acquittal .No appeal is filed. after two years on private complaint , case under sec.302 was taken in to cognizance , trial court convicted main accused and High court acquitted not believing the evidence of child witness and also basing on postmortem report = “I cannot definitely say whether it is a case of suicide or homicide.” DW-1, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon, Medical College, Trichur, has also opined in his medico-legal opinion Ex. D-1 “Under the circumstances, as per the medical evidence, the most likely manner of causation of injuries in this case is self infliction except for the fact that there is always a chance of any mechanical injury to be sustainable by homicidal manner.” Thus, the aforesaid opinions of the two medical experts also do not lend assurance to the prosecution story that the death of the deceased was only homicidal. The opinion at page 387 of Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Twenty-Second Edition, to which reference was made by Mr. Deepak, learned counsel for the appellant-Hamza, does not materially conflict with the expert opinions of PW-4 and DW-1. On the evidence of PW-1 read with the opinions of PW-4 and DW-1, the High Court could not have held that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 killed the deceased by stabbing her on the neck with the help of A-2. In this case, the police itself had investigated and filed a charge-sheet under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC against four members of the in-laws of the family of the deceased and found that it is a case of suicide. Thus, this is not a case where the only conclusion that could be drawn considering the entire evidence is that the death was homicidal and not suicidal. – We, therefore, do not find that the view taken by the High Court that A-1 and A-2 were entitled to acquittal is perverse or unreasonable on the evidence on record so as to call for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution and we accordingly dismiss the appeals.

‘¬†published in¬†http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.3 SECTION IIB [FOR JUDGMENT] S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 268 OF 2007 HAMZA Appellant (s) VERSUS MUHAMMADKUTTY @ MANI & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1378 of 2007 … Continue reading

“An individual, who is dismissed under the provisions of the Army Act, is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service. In exceptional cases, however, he may, at the discretion of the President be granted service pension or gratuity at a rate not exceeding that for which he would have otherwise qualified had be been discharged on the same date.” Regulation 113(a) is clear that an individual, who is dismissed under the provisions of the Army Act, is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4523 OF 2006 Shish Ram … Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution … Continue reading

service matters = Surely, the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case of the charges under Sections 148/323/380/427/596, IPC, he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8638 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 5449 OF 2011) The State of West Bengal and Others … Appellants Versus Sk. Nazrul Islam … Respondent O R D E R A. K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted. 2. This is an … Continue reading

when a constable pointed the gun against the superior, awarding sentence to stand till raising and dismissal order from service is not strikingly extreme disproportionate = In Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma (AIR 2001 SC 3053), this Court has taken the view that the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate to warrant interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and it was only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2177 OF 2006 The Commandant, 22 Battalion, CRPF Srinagar, C/o 56/APO & Ors. … Appellants Versus Surinder Kumar … Respondent J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 12.02.2004 of … Continue reading

Arbitration = 30 days limitation for filing objections for award, is from the date of notice and not from the date of knowledge of filing of the award in the court =The Division Bench of the High Court has taken a view in the impugned order that as the Executive Engineer was looking after the arbitration proceedings, he was the one who could have filed the objections to the award on behalf of the Union of India and thus notice of the filing of the award on the Executive Engineer was mandatory and the starting point of

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1734 OF 2006 Union of India & Anr. … Appellants Versus M/s Deepak Electric & Trading Company & Anr. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 03.01.2003 … Continue reading

prospective or retrospective = the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short `the NCTE Act’), it is only the National Council for Teacher Education (for short `the NCTE’) which can grant recognition for teachers training course and the College had not applied for recognition to the NCTE. -Millia Kaneez Fatima Women’s Primary Teachers Training College, Rambag, Purnea (for short `the College’) is a minority – As the NCTE Act came into force on 01.07.1995 and the NCTE was established on 17.08.1995, this Court has held in Sunil Kumar Parimal and Another v. State of Bihar and Others and Kumari Ranjana Mishra and Another v. The State of Bihar and Others (supra) that the NCTE Act will have no application for any period prior to academic sessions 1995-1996. Thus the appellants who have undertaken the teachers training course in the College which had a valid recognition of the State Government during the academic sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-1995

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8521-8522 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NOs.14744-14745 OF 2009) Pushpa Kumari & Ors. …… Appellants Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. …… Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted. 2. This … Continue reading

This dispute between the State of Himachal Pradesh (Plaintiff), on the one hand, and the Union of India (defendant No.1), State of Punjab (defendant No.2), State of Haryana (defendant No.3), State of Rajasthan (defendant No.4) and Union Territory of Chandigarh (defendant No.5), on the other hand, under Article 131 of the Constitution of India relates to the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects.= Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is entitled to an allocation of 7.19% in addition to 12% free power as claimed above, of the total power generated in Bhakra-Nangal & Beas Projects from the date of commissioning of the Projects or the appointed date (01.11.1966)? (Plaintiff) 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.2199.77 crores against the defendants jointly and severally, as compensation/reimbursement for their failure to supply to the plaintiff 12% and 7.19% shares (on account of distress caused/surrender of rights to generate power and on account of transfer of population to the plaintiff State respectively in the power generated in these projects upto the date of the filing of the present suit and such further sums as may be determined, as entitlement of the plaintiff for the period subsequent to the filing of the suit? (Plaintiff) 11. Whether the Plaintiff-State is entitled to the award of any interest on the amounts determined as its entitlement? (Plaintiff)” =It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff-State is entitled to 7.19% of the power of the composite State of Punjab from the Bhakra-Nangal Project with effect from 01.11.1966 and from Beas Project with effect from the dates of production in Unit I and Unit II. (iii) It is ordered that Defendant No.1 will work out the details of the claim of the Plaintiff-State on the basis of such entitlements of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 in the tables in Paragraph 77 of this judgment as well as all other rights and liabilities of the Plaintiff-State, Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and file a statement in this Court within six months from today stating the amounts due to the Plaintiff-State from Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. (iv) On the amount found to be due to the Plaintiff- State for the period from 01.11.1966 in the case of Bhakra-Nangal Project and the amount found due to the Plaintiff-State for the period from the dates of production in the case of Beas Project, the Plaintiff-State would be

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 2 OF 1996 State of Himachal Pradesh …… Plaintiff Versus Union of India & Ors. …… Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This dispute between the State of Himachal Pradesh (Plaintiff), on the one hand, and … Continue reading

On 12.08.2005, a seven-Judge Bench of this Court delivered a judgment in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537] clarifying the law laid down with regard to the admission procedure and fee structure of unaided educational institutions including minority institutions in Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481]. In para 137 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra), this Court has clarified that Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed admission and the procedure therefor subject to it being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. This Court has further held in para 137 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra) that there may be a single institution imparting a particular type of education which is not being imparted by any other

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21142 OF 2010 Federation of A.P. Minority Educational Institution … Petitioner Versus Admission & Fee Regulatory Committee for Matters relating To Fee Fixation in Pvt. Unaided Professional Colleges & Ors. … Respondents O R D E R A. K. PATNAIK, … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,468 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com