advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Vadodara
defamatory.= “Mamlatdar Shri Gambhirsinh Dhakre is caught red handed by the youngstersMamlatdar is indulged in illicit relations with the wife of Doctor who is residing at Ajwa Road- attempts to conceal the matter- why the Government is not taking any action against the Mamlatdar?”- A news item has the potentiality of bringing doom’s day for an individual. The Editor controls the selection of the matter that is published. Therefore, he has to keep a careful eye on the selection. Blue-penciling of news articles by any one other than the Editor is not welcome in a democratic polity.- ‘Editor’ to mean ‘the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper’. Section 7 raises the presumption in respect of a person who is named as the Editor and printed as such on every copy of the newspaper. The Act does not recognise any other legal entity for raising the presumption. Even if the name of the Chief Editor is printed in the newspaper, there is no presumption against him under Section 7 of the Act.” – for recalling an erroneous order of issuance of process, no specific provision of law is required, would run counter to the scheme of the Code which has not provided for review and prohibits interference at interlocutory stagesTherefore, we are of the opinion, that the view of this Court in Mathew’s case (supra) that no specific provision is required for recalling an erroneous order, amounting to one without jurisdiction, does not lay down the correct law.” .-In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the court in seisin of the case shall now proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.433 OF 2013 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3475 OF 2008) GAMBHIRSINH R. DEKARE … APPELLANT VERSUS FALGUNBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. The petitioner Gambhirsinh R. Dekare, at the … Continue reading
exempt from excise duty. The assessee utilizes cenvat duty paid Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (for short LSHS) as fuel input for generating steam. The steam so generated is utilized to generate electricity for the manufacture of fertilizer which is exempt from excise duty. According to the assessee, it is entitled to claim cenvat credit on the input, that is, LSHS even though fertilizer is exempt from excise duty. The correctness of this view was disputed by the Revenue.=whether under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 an assessee is entitled to claim cenvat credit on duty paid LSHS utilized as an input in the manufacture of fertilizer exempt from duty.=There is an apparent conflict between GSFCL and Gujarat Narmada. 20. In GSFCL a view has been taken that modvat credit can be taken on LSHS used in the manufacture of fertilizer exempt from duty. Although this decision was rendered in the context of availing modvat credit under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they existed prior to the promulgation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 the principle of law laid down is general and not specific to the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The decision rendered in Gujarat Narmada has been rendered in the context of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and is, therefore, more apposite. However, since GSFCL does lay down a general principle of law, we have no option but to refer the issue to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict between GSFCL and Gujarat Narmada. The conflict to be resolved is whether under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 an assessee is entitled to claim cenvat credit on duty paid LSHS utilized as an input in the manufacture of fertilizer exempt from duty. 21. The Registry may place the case papers before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to decide the aforesaid conflict of views.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4189-4196 OF 2010 Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara …..Appellant Versus Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Company Ltd. …..Respondent J U D G M E N T Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The assessee utilizes cenvat duty paid Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (for … Continue reading
interested witness= This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time- honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. = contradiction/ommissions/improvements= It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions/improvements/embellishments etc. had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in natural course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2010 Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh …Appellant Versus State of Gujarat & Anr. …Respondents With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 832 OF 2010 J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 