• Judgments-J

  • A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  


    • Jafar Abbas Rasoolmohammad Merchant Versus State Of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 14361 Of 2010, Judgment Dated- 05.11.2015, J.B.Pardiwala, J, Gujrat High Court- Quashing   of   the   Criminal proceedings arising from the FIR U/S- 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 494, 406, 420 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, & Ss. 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Jaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs State Of Maharashtra-SC-11.09.1969- AIR 1970 SC 1934=1970 CriLJ 1659=(1969) 2 SCC 872- S-25, S-26, & S-27 of Indian Evidence Act- Confession of the Accused [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Jagdish Balaram Bahira [Chairman And Managing Director FCI And Ors .Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira]- Civil Appeal No 8928 Of 2015 Etc. Etc.-SC-02.08.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Jagdish Revansiddha Patil Vs State of Maharashtra-Writ Petition No.- 10913 of 2014- BomHC- 21.10.2016- Election-Disqualification Of Counselor Due To Faking of Cate-Upheld [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Jagdish v. State of Uttaranchal, Criminal Appeal No. 1097/2012, Judgment Dated: 25/11/2014, Bench: T.S. Thakur, J.: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.: R. Banumathi, J., Citation: 2015(2) SCC 252: 2014(13) JT 249: 2014(13) SCALE 148: 2014(9) SLT 625: 2015(2) Crimes 200(SC)- Penal Code, 1860- Sections 304-B, 498-A & 201- Judgments On Sentence- Judgments Culminating In Modification of The Term of The Sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone, etc.- Conviction under- Scope, lack of persistent demand of dowry, accused leaving separately from deceased, effect of- Death of sister-in-law of appellant by burning- Appeal against conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A by appellant/Jagdish/elder brother of husband of deceased- Held, a mere demand of dowry at one or two instances may not attract provisions of Section 304B IPC though such demand might be an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC- There is no material to show that there was persistent demand of dowry by first appellant-Jagdish- Appellant who stated to be living separately could not have persistently subjected Seema to dowry harassment and cruelty and first appellant is to be acquitted of charge of 304B IPC but to be convicted under Section 498-A IPC- HELD: In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., first appellant-Jagdish has stated that he has no wife or child and that he is living separately in Village Churiyala and that his brother Sukhbir was living with his wife and children. First appellant has further stated that he has been living separately even prior to the marriage of Chandrahas and that he has his own food prepared. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the first appellant-Jagdish. Insofar as signature of first appellant-Jagdish in Ex A-3 compromise deed is concerned, being elder member of the family and to ensure peaceful married life of Chandrahas, first appellant perhaps might have signed in the compromise deed. The first appellant who is stated to be living separately could not have persistently subjected Seema to dowry harassment and cruelty and the first appellant is to be acquitted of the charge of 304B IPC. For the alleged demand of dowry by the first appellant as spoken by PWs 1 and 2, the first appellant is to be convicted under Section 498A IPC. As seen from the materials on record, first appellant-Jagdish was about 70 years of age in the year 1996. Considering his age, lenient view has to be taken in imposing the sentence for the offence under Section 498A IPC (Para 16)- As Jagdish 70 years of age, he is sentenced to period already undergone by him for committing offence under Section 498A IPC (Para 15 & 16) [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Jagdish Thakkar Vs. Delhi- 1992 (3) CCR 2764- The Proceedings under S-498 are not the one for recovery of articles [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 2335/2014 Judgment Dated- 18/12/2014), Bench- Dipak Misra & Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ., Citations- 2014(14) JT 369= 2014(14) SCALE 224= 2014(10) SLT 605- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Jagmohan Singh Bhatti Versus Union of India and others, CWP No. 6715 of 2012 (O&M), Judgment Dated: 12.08.2016, Bench: S.S. Saron & Ramendra Jain, JJ, Punjab & Haryana High Court- Issue, Appointment of Parliament Secretaries-Legality, Validity & Justifiability Of Their Appointments- Issue, appointments of Parliamentary Secretaries in the State of Punjab.-Writ in the nature of quo warrants sought qua the the posts of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries declaring the same to be  illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and contrary to; besides, being in utter disregard to the Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 to the Constitution of India.- A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Finance Department of the State of Punjab not to bear the expenses of the said illegal appointees.- Other constitutional provisions involved- Article 164 (3) of the Constitution of India.- Held, "appointments of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries amount to infraction of the provisions of Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution.".
    • Jail Reforms-Re-Inhuman Conditions In Jails-SC-15.09.2017-Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 OF 2013.
    • Jamiluddin Nasir v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No(S). 1240-1241/2010, Judgment Dated- 21/05/2014, Bench- A.K. Patnaik & Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ, Citations- 2014 AIR(SC) 2587: 2014(7) SCC 443: 2014(7) SCALE 571: 2014(5) Supreme 135: 2014(5) SLT 588: 2014 CrLJ 3589: 2014(3) SCC(Cr) 230: 2014(3) Crimes 335(SC)- Criminal Appeals [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Jamshed Ansari Vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad- Civil Appeal No.6120 OF 2016- SC-26.08.2016- Bench:  A.K. Sikri & & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- The right to practice- The right u/s 29, 30 and 33 read with Article 19(1)(g) is however not absolute. The right to practice is subject to Article 19(6) and Article 225 of the Constitution and Section 34 of the Advocates Act. Article 19(6) lays down certain reasonable restrictions on Article 19(1)(g). Article 225 grants power to high courts to frame rules and Section 34 of the Advocates Act holds that a high court may make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the high court and the courts subordinate thereto. In NK Bajpai Vs. Union of India [(2012) 4 SCC 653], the Supreme Court made it clear that right to practice can be regulated and is not an absolute right which is free from restriction or without any limitation- rules are regulatory provisions and do not impose a prohibition on practice of law. It further held that Section 30 is subject to Section 34 and there is no absolute right to practice- The Cases referred to relied upon in the SC: N.K. Bajpai vsUnion of India, (2012) 4 SCC 653; R.K. Anand & Anr. v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106, & Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal VsUnion of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Janardan Vasant Patil Vs State of Maharashtra- Writ Petition No. 1525 OF 2011- BomHC- 16.09.2016-Legislation, Policy & Rule-Quashing Of Administrative Order Rejecting-Plea To Form Police Association [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary, Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1991., Judgment Dated: 27.08.1991, Bench: PANDIAN, S.R., SHETTY, K.J., JJ, Supreme Court Of India- 1992(4) SCC 305 [Full PDF Judgment]- Public interest litigation- Issue, Maintainability- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397, 401, 482- Revisional jurisdiction of High Court-Whether invokable by public interest litigation [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Jairnail Singh [State of Uttarakhand  Vs. Jairnail Singh]- SC-13.11.2017- IPC- 307- Evidence & Witness- Investigation- Held, 16) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. 17) In other words, in our view, the reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court in acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-A) appears to be just and proper as set out below and to which we concur and hence it does not call for any interference by this Court. 18) First, the parties involved in the case namely, the victim, his brother, who was one of the eye-witnesses with other two eye-witnesses and the accused were known to each other then why the Complainant-brother of victim in his application (Ex-P-A) made immediately after the incident to the Chief Medical Superintendent, Pilibhit did not mention the name of the accused and instead mentioned therein "some sardars". 19) Second, according to the prosecution, the weapon used in commission of offence was recovered from the pocket of the accused the next day, it looked improbable as to why would the accused keep the pistol all along in his pocket after the incident for such a long time and roam all over. 20) Third, the weapon (pistol) alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence was not sent for forensic examination with a view to find out as to whether it was capable of being used to open fire and, if so, whether the bullet/palate used could be fired from such gun. Similarly, other seized articles such as blood-stained shirt and soil were also not sent for forensic examination.. 21) Fourth, weapon (Pistol) was not produced before the concerned Magistrate, as was admitted by the Investigating Officer. 22) Lastly, if, according to the prosecution case, the shot was hit from a very short distance as the accused and the victim were standing very near to each other, then as per the medical evidence of the Doctor (PW-6) a particular type of mark where the bullet was hit should have been there but no such mark was noticed on the body. No explanation was given for this. This also raised some doubt in the prosecution case. 23) In our considered opinion, the aforesaid infirmities were, therefore, rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court for reversing the judgment of the Session Court after appreciating the evidence, which the High Court was entitled to do in its appellate jurisdiction. We find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. 23) In our considered opinion, the aforesaid infirmities were, therefore, rightly noticed and relied on by the High Court for reversing the judgment of the Session Court after appreciating the evidence, which the High Court was entitled to do in its appellate jurisdiction. We find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. 24) In other words, it cannot be said that the aforementioned infirmities were either irrelevant or in any way insignificant or technical in nature as compared only to the ocular version of the witnesses. The prosecution, in our view, should have taken care of some of the infirmities noticed by the High Court and appropriate steps should have been taken before filing of the charge-sheet to overcome them. It was, however, not done. The benefit of such infirmities was, accordingly, rightly given to the respondent by the High Court. 25) In the light of the aforementioned infirmities noticed in the prosecution case which, in our opinion, were material, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant (State) cannot be applied to the facts of the case at hand. It is distinguishable. 26) Since the State has challenged the order of acquittal in this appeal, unless we are able to notice any kind of illegality in the impugned judgment, we cannot interfere in such judgment. In other words, it is only when we find that the impugned judgment is based on no evidence or/and it contains no reasoning or when it is noticed that the reasoning given are wholly perverse, this Court may consider it proper in appropriate case to interfere and reverse the decision of the High Court. 27) But when the High Court while reversing the decision of the Session Court acquits the accused and assigns the reasons by appreciating the entire evidence in support of the acquittal, then this Court would not be inclined to interfere in the order of acquittal. In our view, it is necessary for the High Court while hearing the appeal arising out of the order of conviction to appreciate the entire evidence and then come to its conclusion to affirm or reverse the order. In a case of later, which results in reversal, with which we are here concerned, it is necessary for the High Court to assign cogent reasons as to why it does not consider it proper to agree with the reasoning of the Sessions Judge by pointing out material contradiction in evidence and infirmities in the prosecution case. Case at hand is of this nature [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Jasbir Kaur & Ors. Versus State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1096/2011 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 2903-2904/2012, 2906- 2907/2012, , Judgment Dated- 29.11.2011, Bench: Manmohan, J, Delhi High Court -Quashing of FIR U/S-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 406/498A/376/420/506/120B IPC [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. Distt. Judge, Dehradun-SC-27.08.1997-Citation-1997-7 SCC-7- Maintenance For Wife & Children-HMA- S-24 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Jaya Bachchan vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Civil)  199 of 2006- SC-08.05.2006-(2006) 5 SCC 266- Art.- 32, 102, 103, 102 of constitution of India- Challenge to the order of the Hon'ble President of India, as also to the opinion rendered by the Election Commission [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) Through His L.Rs Andanother Vs. Mst.  Bibi Hazra And Ors.- Civil Appeal No. 1759 Of 1967- SC-19.10.1973- 1974 -AIR- 171= 1974- SCR- (1)- 70- 1974-SCC-(1)-3 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Jessica Lal Murder-Sidhartha Vashisht Alias Manu Sharma-SC-19.04.2014 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Jitendra Vs. State Of M.PSC-18.09.2003- Appeal (Crl.) 1318-1319 Of 2002-(2004) 10 SCC 562- NDPS Case- Non-production of seized contraband- Fatal for the case for prosecution [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • J Jayalalitha Vs. State- KarHC-11.05.2015-Crl Appeal-835 of 2014 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Joginder Kumar Vs. State Of U.P.-SC-25.04.1994- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 9 of 1994- AIR 1994 SC 1349- 1994 CriLJ 1981- (1994) 4 SCC 260- Articles 21 and 22 (1) of Constitution of India -law of arrest is one of balancing private rights of individual and that of social interest in curbing crime- no arrest can be made only because it is lawful for police officer to do so- police officer has to justify arrest apart from his power to do so - Articles 21 and 22 (1) mandates some rights to arrested persons and therefore the same have to be complied with- it is dutyof magistrate before whom arrested person is produced to satisfy himself whether the requirements are complied with or not - duty envisaged under Articles 21 and 22 (1) [Full PDF Judgments].
    • J S Gill- State v. Jaspal Singh Grill, AIR 1984 SC 1503 at p. 1505= 1984 Cri LJ 1211= (1984)3 SCC 555= 1984 SCC (Cri) 44 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • J S Gill- State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, AIR 1984 SC 2277= 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057. 36 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Jurah [Customs Vs. Juarah & Anr.]- CRL.LP. 238 of 2017-DelHC-08.01.2018- S-21-S-23-S-29-S-50-S-67-S-103-Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Jyoti Puri Vs. Pawan Gandhi- CS-(OS)- 970 of 2011-DelHC-03.01.2018- Partition Suit- Rendition of Account- Will- Relinquishment Deed- Absolute owner [Full PDF Judgment].

    Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

    A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove