IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCriminal Appeal No(s). 205-206/2010SATISH & ANR. ETC. Appellant(s)VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)O R D E RThese two appeals arise out of the judgment and orderdated 22.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab andHaryana in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1164-SB of 2000 and 1185-SB of 2000.Facts necessary for decision of… Read More whether Satish and Dharambir can be convicted for carrying commercial quantity for which minimum punishment is ten years. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the police has recovered 500 grams from each of these accused and on personal search of their body, it was recovered from the pockets of kurta and pant respectively. It is urged that though each of these three accused was separately having charas, no presumption can be drawn that each of them knew that the other was carrying charas. In this case unfortunately the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence in this regard which would even remotely indicate that all the three accused acted together or connived or conspired with each other in the purchase and sale of charas. There is not even a whisper in this behalf.
wishing you all a Happy and Merry Christmas God bless you all with Great Health , Wealth and Prospertiy
REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONREVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) D NO.44603 OF 2019INCRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.609-610 OF 2017AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH …PetitionerVERSUSSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) …RespondentJ U D G M E N TR. BANUMATHI, J.This Review Petition has been preferred by the petitioneraccused Akshay Kumar Singh who was the cleaner of the bus toreview the judgment… Read More Review is a not a rehearing of the appeal over again. In a review petition, it is not for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion.
1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCivil Appeal No. 9521 of 2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No 30220 of 2019)(D No 45004 of 2018)State of Odisha & Ors …. Appellant(s) VersusBichitrananda Das ….Respondent(s)J U D G M E N TDr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1 Delay condoned.2 Leave granted.3 This appeal arises from a judgment of… Read More Government Grants Act 1895= State government formulated a scheme to allow conversion of residential leasehold plots under the GA Department within the area of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation into freehold land. The policy, inter alia, contained the following condition: “Lessees who have encroached or unauthorisedly occupied government land anywhere within Bhubaneswar municipal corporation limits would not be eligible to be covered under the scheme unless they vacate the unauthorised occupation.=The submission of an application does not confer a vested right for permission. The applicant must comply with the terms of the policy. One of the terms in the policy in question is that the applicant should not have encroached on government land. An applicant who seeks the benefit of the policy must comply with its terms. In the present case, the policy which was formulated by the State government specifically contained a stipulation to the effect that a lessee, who had encroached upon or unauthorisedly occupied government land anywhere within Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation limits would not be eligible to be covered by the scheme unless the unauthorised occupation is vacated.
1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCivil Appeal No. 6619 Of 2016MAHARAJA AGRASENHOSPITAL & ORS. …APPELLANTSVersusMASTER RISHABH SHARMA & ORS. …RESPONDENTSWITHCivil Appeal No. 9461 Of 2019(Arising out of Diary No. 15393 of 2019)POOJA SHARMA & ORS. …APPELLANTSVersusMAHARAJA AGRASENHOSPITAL & ORS. …RESPONDENTSJ U D G M E N TINDU MALHOTRA, J. The present Civil Appeals… Read More Doctors guilty of medical negligence, since they failed to carry out the mandatory check up of Retinopathy of Prematurity (“ROP”) on Respondent No.1- Master Rishabh, who was a pre-term baby, which led to his total blindness.=The grant of compensation to remedy the wrong of medical negligence is within the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The said principle provides that a person is entitled to damages which should as nearly as possible get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. = In conclusion, we pass the following directions to secure the interest and welfare of Respondent No.1. These directions are being passed to ensure that the compensation received is utilized for the welfare of Respondent No.1, to enable him to acquire suitable education and equip him to become selfreliant. We direct that the compensation of Rs. 76,00,000/- awarded to the Respondent No.1- Master Rishabh Sharma s/o Mrs. Pooja Sharma (in C.A. No. 6619 of 2016), be utilized in the following manner: a) Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs Only) is allocated exclusively for Respondent No.1- Master Rishabh Sharma for his education, welfare, and sustenance; b)Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only) is allocated to Mrs. Pooja Sharma, the mother of Master Rishabh Sharma, as his care-giver, after deduction of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- already disbursed to her.; c) Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) is awarded towards litigation costs, payable to Mr. Jai Dehadrai, Advocate and 67 Mr. Sidharth Arora, Advocate, who have represented the Complainants on a pro bono basis (as stated by them) in this Court. 11.5.7 The amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- awarded to Master Rishabh Sharma shall be disbursed in the following manner: A. Rs. 50,00,000/- be deposited in a Five Years’ Post Office Time Deposit Scheme in the name of Master Rishabh Sharma with Mrs. Pooja Sharma as his natural guardian. Let five deposits in multiples of Rs. 10,00,000/- each be made. The deposits shall be opened in the Post Office Savings Bank Account of the Supreme Court Post Office, New Delhi. The account shall be operated by Mrs. Pooja Sharma under the supervision of the concerned Registrar of this Court. The aforesaid five deposits aggregating to Rs.50,00,000/- will fetch Master Rishabh Sharma an annual interest income of Rs.3,85,000/, which will be credited into a Savings Account with the Post Office. Out of the said sum, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be invested annually in a 15 Year Public Provident Fund 68 (“PPF”) Account to be opened in the name of Master Rishabh Sharma with UCO Bank, Supreme Court, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. These yearly investments, going by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, will be tax free. After having invested Rs.1,50,000/- every year in a PPF account, the rest of the yearly income amounting to Rs.2,35,000/- p.a. (from and out of Rs.3,85,000/-) which is equivalent to about Rs.20,000/-per month, shall be utilized by Respondent No.2- Mrs. Pooja Sharma for the education and upbringing of Respondent No.1. B. Rs.4,50,000/- shall be deposited in a Five Year Post Office Monthly Income Scheme Account (“MIS Account”) with the Supreme Post Office in the name of Master Rishabh Sharma so that it will give him monthly interest of 7.6% p.a., that is to say Rs.2,850/- per month, which shall be utilized by his Mrs. Pooja Sharma primarily for the upbringing of Respondent No.1. 69 C. The balance of Rs. 5,50,000/- from the amount deposited by the Appellants, shall be invested in a Five Year Fixed Deposit Account (“FD Account”) to opened with UCO Bank, Supreme Court, Tilak Marg, New Delhi in the name of Master Rishabh Sharma. The interest accruing therefrom may be utilized by Mrs. Pooja Sharma in such manner as is deemed appropriate. D. These investments will ensure an annual income of approximately Rs. 4,50,000/-. With the investment of Rs. 1,50,000/- in a PPF Account, which will be tax free, as the annual income of Rs. 3,00,000/- will be within the permissible tax exemption limit of Rs. 3,00,000/- plus Rs. 75,000/- (Disability Allowance under Section 80U of the Income Tax Act,1961). E. All these deposits on maturity shall be re-invested by Respondent No.2 – Pooja Sharma with the concurrence of the concerned Registrar of this Court on such terms, which will fetch a high rate of interest, and preserve the corpus for the benefit of Respondent No.1. At no stage, will the Respondent 70 No.2 be permitted to withdraw any amount from these deposits without the permission of the concerned Registrar. 11.5.8 We direct the concerned Registrar of this Court to be associated with Respondent No.2- the mother of Master Rishabh Sharma, in giving effect to the directions issued hereinabove. 12. Accordingly, we allow Civil Appeal No. 9461 of 2019 (Diary No. 15393 of 2019) filed by the Complainants. 13. Civil Appeal No. 6619 of 2016 filed by the Hospital and the Doctors is dismissed. The Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 in Civil Appeal No. 6619 of 2016 are directed to deposit the balance amount of. Rs. 44,00,000/- in this Court within a further period of 12 weeks from today. 14. An affidavit of compliance with respect to the deposit of compensation be filed by the Appellants before this Court. 15. We have been informed by the Registry of this Court that the amount of Rs. 32,00,000/-, which was deposited by the Appellants pursuant to Order dated 29.07.2016 of this Court, and kept in a Fixed Deposit with UCO Bank, has accrued an interest of about Rs. 3,80,954/-. We direct that 71 this interest amount be made over to Mrs. Pooja Sharma, the mother and care-giver, for the welfare and education of Master Rishabh Sharma, for the current year. 16. The original medical records be returned by the Registry to the counsel for the Appellant No.1-Hospital. Pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.
Crl.A.No.2298 of 2010REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2298 OF 2010Mayank N Shah …..AppellantVersusState of Gujarat & Anr. …..RespondentsJ U D G M E N TR. Subhash Reddy, J. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused no.4, aggrieved by thejudgment dated 16.10.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No.324 of 1987,by the High… Read More When the advocate on record who filed the appeal was elevated to the Bench, it was for the appellant to make his own arrangement for appointing another advocate in the place of earlier advocate on record. Appellant did not take any steps in this regard. Even notice sent to the appellant was not received by him for want of correct address. As such there was no option except to proceed for disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant, by appointing amicus curiae. On the mere allegation of the appellant that the amicus curiae appointed was earlier junior counsel of C.B.I. advocate, is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Having perused the findings recorded by the trial court/Special Court and of the High Court, we are of the view that the findings recorded in support of the case of the prosecution were in conformity with the oral and documentary evidence on record. We are satisfied from the findings recorded that the appellant knowing fully well that the invoices/bills were fake and fabricated, were presented on behalf of the firm to the bank and thus cheated the bank. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant herein beyond reasonable doubt to record conviction of the appellant.
Non-ReportableIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCivil Appeal Nos. 9223- 9224 of 2019Brigadier L.I. Singh YSM …. Appellant(s)VersusUnion of India & Ors. …. Respondent(s)J U D G M E N TL. NAGESWARA RAO, J. The refusal of the Armed Forces Tribunal, PrincipalBench, New Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) to interferewith the disciplinary action initiated… Read More Right of Cross Examination = Though, we are not disturbing the findings of the Tribunal regarding the compliance of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, we are of the considered opinion that the direction given by the Tribunal requires modification. Without the report of the one man inquiry, the Appellant was certainly disabled from effectively defending himself in the Court of Inquiry. The Appellant is entitled to an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses against him after examining the one man inquiry report. Further, the Appellant raised the issue of the one man inquiry report not being provided to him at the earliest possible time. Therefore, the directions issued by the Tribunal that disciplinary proceedings be conducted afresh requires to be modified. The Court of Inquiry has to be conducted afresh. The Appellant is entitled to cross-examine witnesses and produce witnesses in his favour.