//
archives

final judgment

This tag is associated with 5 posts

Complainants- Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed complaint being C.R. Case No.71C/2012 on 15.03.2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh under Section 417 and 420 I.P.C., for taking appropriate criminal action against respondent No.4, who was accused in the complaint, and also against the Manager, United Bank of India as well as the Regional Manager of the Bank.- The Complainant, however, stated before the High Court that he had purchased the property somewhere in the year 2005. However, that is not reflected in the legal opinion given by the advocate to the Bank. We are of the view that the Bank has acted bona fide on the report of the advocate after searching the relevant records for the last 12 years. Further, we have also perused the complaint filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and found no indication in the complaint as against any of the officers of the Bank that they have acted in their individual capacity or otherwise so as to cheat the complainant. If at all there is any grievance that is against respondent no.4. In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal and quash the criminal complainant as far as the Bank and the officials are concerned.

‘ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRL.M.P. NO.10983/2013 IN AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.774 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL) NO. 8977 OF 2012) UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard counsel on either side. Leave granted. This appeal … Continue reading

On 21.07.2011, respondent No.2 – Commissioner of Police passed a detention order against the detenu under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers 2 = Detaining Authority has concluded as under:- “Hence, I am satisfied that the accused Kajamalai Viji @ Vijay is habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order and as such he is a Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982. By committing the above described grave crime in a busy locality cum business area, he has created a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area in which the occurrence took place and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”= we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 417 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9716 of 2011) Subramanian …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against … Continue reading

Rape case – tender ages of victim and accused =Considering the fact that the victim, in the case on hand, was aged about 7 years on the date of the incident and the accused was in the age of 18/19 years and also of the fact that the incident occurred nearly 10 years ago, the award of life imprisonment which is maximum prescribed is not warranted and also in view of the mandate of Section 376(2)(f) IPC, we feel that the ends of justice would be met by imposing RI for 10 years. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant informed this Court that the appellant had already served nearly 10 years.

REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2967 of 2011)     Bavo @ Manubhai Ambalal Thakore …. Appellant(s)   Versus   State of Gujarat …. Respondent(s)     J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J. 1) … Continue reading

cancellation of bail not necessary as the high court properly imposed conditions on bail-Taking note of all these aspects, particularly, the fact that the second respondent was in jail since 24.08.2009, the trial has commenced by examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and the assurance by the State that trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable time and also of the fact that the High Court while granting bail has imposed several conditions for strict adherence during the period of bail, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. In fact, in the impugned order itself, the High Court has made it clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the trial Court will have liberty to take steps to send the applicant therein (respondent No.2 herein) to jail again. In addition to the same, it is further made clear that if the appellant receives any fresh threat from the second respondent or from his supporters, he is free to inform the trial Court and in such event the trial Court is free to take appropriate steps as observed by the High Court. We also direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order without unnecessary adjournments.

REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10244 of 2010)     Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi …. Appellant(s)   Versus   State of U.P. & Anr. …. Respondent(s)     J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J. … Continue reading

amendment of plaint rejected , high court order set aside, lower court order upheld as correct= upheld the power that in deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by compensating the other side by awarding costsThe entire object of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other’s case. It also helps checking the delays in filing the applications.

REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 561 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8985 of 2011   J. Samuel and Others …. Appellant (s)   Versus   Gattu Mahesh and Others …. Respondent(s)     J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,333 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