mandeep kaur

JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF GRAMA SABHAS / NYAYALAYAS – NEWLY FORMED FOR QUICK DISPOSAL OF CASES =whether in view of Sections 4(2), 5, 44-51, 71 and 77 etc. of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which give complete powers to the Gram Panchayat to take cognizance of criminal cases, accept complaints, conduct enquiries, summon witnesses, proceed with the trial, pass orders of conviction, sentence and compensation, the impugned proceedings initiated under the IPC is sustainable? On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondent-State that in view of serious allegations against the appellants who cheated the complainant’s son and committed fraud by taking his money, in spite of Section 44(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the prosecuting authority is entitled to proceed under the provisions of the IPC. = (i) There is no bar for investigating any offence by the police including the offences mentioned in the Schedule II of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. (ii) The investigation would include the power to arrest and the ordinary procedure under the Code will govern the entire proceedings. (iii) Till the stage of completion of investigation, Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction at all. (iv) After the report of police under Section 173, the Magistrate shall transfer the case for trial to Gram Panchayat or to any other subordinate court to him. (v) Unless a case is transferred to Gram Panchayat under Section 45 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the ‘Gram Panchayat’ does not get any jurisdiction over the said case/investigation unless the offence is one mentioned in Section 47(3) of the said Act. (vi) However, it is open to any person/complainant to directly approach the Gram Panchayat by submitting a written complaint. In that case also, if it is a cognizable offence, there is no bar for the police to investigate the matter. = Under these circumstances, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the investigation is to be conducted by the police authorities only and the offence of Section 420 IPC where the allegations are of a serious nature and the appellants has duped of Rs. 30 lakhs from the complainant, should be tried by the regular criminal court only and not by the Gram Panchayat.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40486 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6746 of 2012) Sharanjit Kaur & Anr. …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 812 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9690 of … Continue reading →

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40486 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6746 of 2012) Sharanjit Kaur & Anr. …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 812 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9690 of … Continue reading →

Since our reasoning aforesaid results in the finding, by way of interpreting the provisions in the Water Act and the Air Act, as requiring prior consent to establish and operate shopping malls and commercial shopping complexes and the provisions being not applicable to residential complexes, we declare void actions initiated by DPCC pertaining to residential complexes and we further hold that said writ petitions are allowed in terms of the prayers made=The buildings with respect whereto action was proposed to be taken or was taken by DPCC, are of three kinds: (i) Residential Housing Complexes, (ii) Commercial Shopping Complexes, and (iii) Shopping Malls. Actions were initiated or decisions were taken on the allegation that with respect to the buildings constructed, the writ petitioners had not obtained a „consent to establish‟ as required under The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as „the Water Act‟) and „consent to operate‟ as required under The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as „the Air Act‟).

LPA 895/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of 38 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : 16th January 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: 23rd January, 2012 + LPA 895/2010 DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ….. Appellant Through: Mr.C. Mohan Rao and Mr.Lokesh Sharma, Advocates with Mr.Dinesh Jindal, L.O. … Continue reading →