[Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2008]. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1992 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 02.04.1992 passed by the IInd Additional Session Judge, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh in Session Case No. 157/1989 against the appellants herein under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 452 and 325 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Brief facts: As per the prosecution, on 09.09.1989, at about 12 noon, two cows belonging to Badri (since deceased) entered into the field of Ramjilal and Badri (accused), who is having the same name as that of the deceased and damaged the crops standing in the field which resulted into an altercation between them. During altercation, Badri (since deceased) inflicted a lathi blow on the head of accused-Badri and, thereafter, he ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the appellants herein along with Ramjilal, Badri, Roshan and Brijmohan carrying luhangi (lethal weapon) and lathis in their hands reached the house of Badri (since deceased). It is the further case of the prosecution that Chintu Mahte (Appellant No. 2 herein) dragged him from his house and Ramswaroop (Appellant No. 1 herein) gave a luhangi blow on the left rib of the deceased.
↧
Ramswaroop Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [12/03/13]
↧
Chief Executive Officer, Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board Vs. K. Aroquia Radja [12/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2013 (@ Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4669/2012]. Both these appeals raise the question as to whether the employees who are appointed on a co-terminus basis have any right to continue in service after the cessation of the engagement of the person with whose engagement their services were made co-terminus. Facts leading to these appeals are this wise:- The Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board (Board for short) is a statutory body corporate constituted under Section 3 of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1980 (Board Act for short). The board is running various Khadi spinning/weaving/silk centers which provide employment opportunities to a large number of persons, particularly women. It runs several Khadi Bhandars for the sale of Khadiand Village Industries goods produced by the board. The board has 219sanctioned posts at various levels as approved by the Government of Puducherry. It has framed Recruitment Rules/Standing Orders with respect to each of these posts. Government of India had issued Office Memorandum dated18.5.1998, wherein after referring to the principles laid down by this Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216 (which recognises the recruitment through the employment exchanges as thep rinciple mode of recruitment), it was directed that all vacancies arising under the Central Government Offices/establishments (including quasi-government institutions and statutory organizations) irrespective of the nature and duration (other than those filled through UPSC), are not only to be notified, but also to be filled through the Employment Exchange alone.
↧
↧
The Official Liquidator, U.P. and Uttarakhand Vs. Allahabad Bank [12/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2511 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 35627 of 2011]. The spinal issue that has spiralled to this Court is whether the Company Judge under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the 1956 Act") has jurisdiction at the instance of the Official Liquidator to set aside the auction or sale held by the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity "the RDB Act") or whether the Official Liquidator is required to follow the route as engrafted under the RDB Act by filing an appeal assailing the auction and the resultant confirmation of sale. Regard being had to the controversy involved which is in the realm of pure question of law, it is not necessary to exposit the facts in detail. Hence, the necessitous facts are adumbrated herein. The respondent, Allahabad Bank, a secured creditor with whom certain properties were mortgaged, filed Original Application No. 153 of 1999 under Section 9 of the RDB Act for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,93,47,701/- with interest from the company, namely, M/s. Rajindra Pipes Limited, which was decreed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (DRT) vide its order dated 7.3.2000. The Debt Recovery Certificate being DRC No. 164 of 2000 was issued for recovery of the aforesaid amount which was subsequently transferred to the DRT at Allahabad. Be it noted, Company Petition No. 113 of 1997 was filed before the learned Company Judge in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad who, vide order dated 26.7.2000, had passed an order for winding up of the company, as a consequence of which the Official Liquidator had taken over the possession of the assets of the company on 24.7.2002.
↧
Bharat Bhushan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [12/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 7th April, 2006 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1225 of 2004 by which the High Court has maintained the judgment of the XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 671 of 2003 convicting the appellants under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. On 12th February, 2007, this Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal qua petitions Nos. 1 and 3 and issued notice confined to appellant nos. 2 and 4 and on 18th October, 2007, this Court had also granted bail to the said two appellants. Hence this appeal is confined to the appeal of appellant Nos. 2 and 4. The facts very briefly are that Madhuri got married to appellant No. 1 at Jabalpur on 10th June, 2003 and she came to the house of her parents on 5th August, 2003. In the house of her parents, she committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling on 17th August, 2003. The father of the deceased lodged a report with the Police on 17th August, 2003, saying that he had brought his daughter to the house on 5th August, 2003 and she was not sent back to her in- laws' house on account of the illness of his wife and she committed suicide. The Police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the appellants under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the appellants and the High Court has maintained the conviction.
↧
Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [13/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2525-2516 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.5752-53 of 2008]. Application of an erroneous "Model Answer Key" for evaluation of answer scripts of candidates appearing in a competitive examination is bound to lead to erroneous results and an equally erroneous inter-se merit list of such candidates. That is precisely what appears to have happened in the present appeals which arise out of a common judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the High Court has directed the Bihar Staff Selection Commission to conduct a fresh examination and re- draw the merit list on that basis. For those who have already been appointed on the basis of the earlier examination, a fresh examination has been directed by the High Court before they are finally ousted from the posts held by them. The appellants who happen to be the beneficiaries of the erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts have assailed the order passed by the High Court in these appeals which arise in the following backdrop: By an advertisement dated 14th August 2006, applications were invited by the Bihar State Staff Selection Commission from eligible candidates for appointment against 2268 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) out of which 1057 posts were in the open merit category.
↧
↧
Allahabad Bank Vs. A.C. Aggarwal [13/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 9024 of 2012]. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court is whether the respondent, who had sought voluntary retirement from service and was paid gratuity by the appellant under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the 1972Act') along with Contributory Provident Fund is entitled to pension. The appellant's predecessor, i.e., Allahabad Bank Ltd. Was established in 1865. Its employees were given pensioner benefits w.e.f.14.3.1890. After 22 years, the Board of Directors of the appellant's predecessor passed Resolution dated 2.3.1912 vide which the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund was extended to the employees. The appellant's predecessor was nationalized in 1969 along with 13 other commercial banks through the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)Ordinance, 1970, which was repealed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (for short, 'the 1970 Act').Section 12(2) of that Act reads as under: "Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), every officer or other employee of an existing bank shall become, on the commencement of this Act, an officer or other employee, as the case may be, of the corresponding new bank and shall hold his office or service in that bank on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the undertaking of the existing bank had not been transferred to and vested in the corresponding new bank and continue to do so unless and until his employment in the corresponding new bank is terminated or until his remuneration, terms or conditions are duly altered by the corresponding new bank."
↧
Vipin Jaiswal (A-I) Vs. State of A.P. represented by Public Prosecutor [13/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No (S). 1431 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11th December, 2006 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2003. The facts briefly are that an FIR was lodged by Gynaneshwar Jaiswal on 4.4.1999 at 2.15 p.m. in Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad. In the FIR it was stated by the informant that his daughter Meenakshi Jaiswal was married to the appellant on 22.2.1996 and at the time of marriage he gave sufficient gold jewellery, silver items, furniture, electrophinic gadgets etc., worth above Rs.2,50,000/- but ever since her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband Vipin Jaiswal, her husband's parents Prem Kumar Jaiswal and Yashoda Bai and her husband's sister Supriya and her husband and they all brutally assaulted her on innumerable occasions for not getting sufficient dowry. It was further stated in the FIR that on 2.4.1999 the informant received a call from the appellant and he went to the house of the appellant along with his relatives to find out what had happened as well as to give invitation for a function at his place but they all abused him and the appellant physically assaulted and pushed him out from the house but fearing the safety of his daughter and her welfare, he did not report the matter to the police.
↧
Arindam Chattopadhyay Vs. State of West Bengal [13/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2521 of 013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7420 of 2012]. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants, who have been working as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) in the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) since July, 1999, are entitled to be paid salary in the pay scale prescribed for that post. On being selected by the West Bengal Public Service Commission, the appellants were appointed as Assistant Child Development Project Officer (ACDPO) in 1986-87. After about 12 years, the competent authority issued order dated 7.7.1999 with the concurrence of the Finance Department of the Government whereby the petitioners were temporarily transferred to ICDS projects to act as CDPOs in their existing pay scales. The appellants made representation dated 15.2.2011 with the prayer that they may either be promoted to the post of CDPO or be given pay scale of that post by asserting that they had been discharging the duties of the post of CDPO. After about 2 years, the appellants filed O.A. No.330/2003 before the State Administrative Tribunal, West Bengal (for short, 'the Tribunal')and prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to pay them salary and allowances in the scale of Rs.5500-11200 attached to the post of CDPO from the date they were working as acting CDPO, i.e., 7.7.1999.
↧
Satya Pal Vs. State of Haryana [13/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007]. These are appeals against the judgment dated 16th March, 2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 334-DB/1997 and Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1997. The facts very briefly are that a First Information Report was lodged by Sombir (the complainant) on 14th July, 1992 alleging therein, inter alia, that his sister Rajwanti was married to the appellant and after one or two months of the marriage she came home and told her mother that her in-laws were demanding dowry in the shape of a flour machine, electric motor with equipment to chop the fodder and these articles were given in December 1991, when his sister Rajwanti gave birth to male child and the in-laws of Rajwanti became happy. But thereafter Rajwanti came after sometime and told that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law and husband(appellant) were demanding a fridge, cooler and TV, but the mother and father of Rajwanti said that if this demand is met the demands will go on increasing and Rajwanti left for her in-laws' house on 19th June, 1992.
↧
↧
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari [14/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No.___ 445 _____ of 2013 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 9707 of 2012]. On 11.7.2006 there were seven bomb blasts in seven different first class compartments of local trains of Mumbai Suburban Railways. These bomb blasts resulted in the death of 187 persons. Severe injuries on account of the said bomb blasts were caused to 829 persons. These blasts led to the registration of following seven criminal reports: (i). CR No.77 of 2006 at Mumbai Central Police Station. (ii). CR No.78 of 2006 at Mumbai Central Police Station. (iii). CR No.86 of 2006 at Bandra Railway Police Station. (iv). CR No.87 of 2006 at Bandra Railway Police Station. (v). CR No.41 of 2006 at Andheri Railway Police Station. (vi). CR No.59 of 2006 at Vasai Road Railway Police Station. (vii). CR No.156 of 2006 at Borivli Railway Police Station. In all these cases investigation was transferred to the Anti Terrorists Squad, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the ATS"), wherein the matter was registered as CR No.5 of 2006. In all 13 accused were arrested in connection with the bomb blasts of 11.7.2006. The accused-respondents herein are the accused in the controversy.
↧
State of Gujarat Vs. Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd) Ramesh Amritlal Mehta [14/03/13]
[Review Petition (C) No(S). 362-363 Of 2013 In Civil Appeal No(S). 8814-8815 Of 2012]. The original appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815/2012 have filed the present review petitions seeking review of our judgment dated 02.01.2013. We bestowed our serious consideration to the various grounds raised in the review petition. On a detailed reading of the grounds, it is quite apparent that the provocation for filing these review petitions is mainly the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna & Ors. dated 11.01.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos.197-199 of 2013 @ SLP (C) Nos.15658-15660 of 2012 which related to appointment of Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. In the said judgment, the judgment under review reported as State of Gujarat v. Hon.ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) - 2013 (1) SCALE 7 was also noted and the clear distinction as between Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and Section 3(1) of Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 was spelt out. By referring to the above later decision in the forefront, the sum and substance of the grounds raised for review herein is three-fold, namely, there is divergence of views taken by this Court in the impugned judgment and in the later judgment as regards the interpretation of language of Section 3 in both the legislations,the role of the constitutional authorities involved in the consultation process and; regarding primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice vis-à- vis the Chief Minister of the concerned State.
↧
Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi [15/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 6462 of 2012]. The important question that falls for determination in the instant appeal is about the ambit and scope of the inherent powers of the High Court's under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") in quashing of the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences relating to matrimonial disputes. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated04.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class I, Indore. Brief facts: The marriage of Jitendra Raghuvanshi (Appellant No. 1 herein) and Babita Raghuvanshi, respondent-wife, was solemnized on 22.02.2002 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, the parties were residing together as husband and wife at District Baitul, M.P. On 05.03.2003, an FIR being No. 172 of 2003 was registered at P.S. Sarni, Dist. Baitul for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') at the instance of Babita Raghuvanshi - respondent-wife owing to the harassment and torture meted out to her in the matrimonial home by her husband and his relatives.
↧
The Union of India Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar [15/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1933 of 2011]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated27.04.2010 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Gauhati in Writ Petition (C)No. 744 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati in O.A. No. 251 of 2007. Brief facts: Anil Kumar Sarkar, the respondent herein, joined the Northern Railways as a Junior Clerk on 04.11.1977. He was promoted to various posts and while he was working as senior AFA/T-1 in the office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of Northeast Frontier (N.F.) Railway at Maligaon, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on 26.02.2002 and 27.02.2002 to consider eligible Group 'B' officers of the Accounts Department for their substantive promotion to Group 'A' (Jr. Scale) of Indian Railways Accounts Service (IRAS) against the vacancies for various Zonal Railways/Production Units. In the said DPC, the respondent's name was also considered against the vacancies in N.F. Railway for the year 2001-2002 and accordingly, his name was placed in the extended select panel. It was alleged by the appellants herein that during the year 1994-95,while the respondent was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Central Stores Accounts (Bills) in the office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer (Open Line), N.F. Railway, Maligaon, he committed gross misconduct in the matter of checking and passing the bills of various firms involved in manufacturing and supplying of cast iron sleeper plates to N.F. Railways.
↧
↧
Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand [15/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2008]. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi passed in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 1999 dated 14.11.2006 wherein it has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T.No.168 of 1994/172 of 1995. By the said judgment, the appellant herein was convicted under Section 376, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The prosecution case in nutshell is stated hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged in this appeal. The prosecutrix in this case has made a statement before the police at Ghatsila police station, stating that she has narrated the incident which took place on 14.2.1993 at 11.00 a.m. in the house of the appellant. She stated that she was working as a nurse in the Nursing Home of Dr. Prabir Bhagat at Moubhandar in the jurisdiction of Ghatsila, East Singhbhum District. The house of the appellant Rajesh, who appears to be a classmate of prosecutrix, is situated near the Nursing Home in which the prosecutrix was working as a nurse.
↧
State of U.P. Vs. Satpal [15/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2554 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8629 of 2013] @ (Cc No.3593 of 2013]. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Judgment pronounced by this Court on 11.3.2013 in Civil Appeal No.2326 of 2013 @ SLP(C) No.12960 of 2008 would govern this appeal also. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
↧
Kamlendra Singh @ Pappu Singh Vs. State of M.P. [15/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7708 of 2012]. The appellant, along with two others, were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 307 read with Section 34 IPC for conspiring to murder of one Atul Mishra on 27.8.1993 in Rewa at Allahabad Road, near Kalewa Hotel. For the said purpose, the appellant accused gave a country made pistol to the accused Raj Kumar Singh and exhorted him to shoot Atul Mishra. Raj Kumar Singh fired at Atul Mishrawith the said country made pistol and he succumbed to his injuries. The trial Court convicted him under Sections 341, 307 read with Section 34 IPC, but acquitted him of the charges under Section 294 IPC. For the offence under Section 341 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine ofRs.500/-. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC, but the conviction as well as the sentence awarded for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was maintained, against which this appeal has been preferred.
↧
Nagendrappa Natikar Vs. Neelamma [15/03/13]
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11800 of 2013 arising out of C.C. No. 1297 of 2012]. The question that is raised for consideration in this case is whether a compromise entered into by husband and wife under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), agreeing for a consolidated amount towards permanent alimony, thereby giving up any future claim for maintenance, accepted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), would preclude the wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the Act'). The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife)took place on 24.5.1987. Alleging that the petitioner is not maintaining his wife, respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance before the 1st Additional JMFC at Gulbarga, being Misc. Case No. 234 of 1992. While the matter was pending, an application was preferred by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 3.9.1994 stating that the parties had arrived at a compromise, by which the respondent had agreed to receive an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards permanent alimony and that she would not make any claim for maintenance in future or enhancement of maintenance.
↧
↧
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra [15/03/13]
[Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 50 of 2012]. The gravamen of grievance of the petitioners in this petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pertains to procrastination in trial, gradual corrosion of their social reputation, deprivation of respectable livelihood because of order of suspension passed against the petitioner No. 1 during which he was getting a meager subsistence allowance and has reached the age of superannuation without being considered for promotion, extreme suffering of emotional and mental stress and strain, and denial of speedy trial that has impaired their Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The asseverations pertaining to long delay in trial have been made on the constitutional backdrop leading to the prayer for quashment of the proceedings of Special Case No. 4 of 1993 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay. Before we proceed to state the factual score, it is necessary to mention that this is not the first time that the petitioners have approached this Court. They, along with others, had assailed the order of the High Court of Bombay declining to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and others on the ground of delay in investigation and filing of charge sheet in three special leave petitions which were converted to three criminal appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 176 of 2001, 177 of 2001 and 178 of 2001.
↧
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Yogendra Nath Arora [18/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2013 @Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1593 of 2007]. Yogendra Nath Arora (hereinafter referred to as "the Accused") was earlier employed as Deputy General Manager in U.P. Industrial Consultants, an undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequent upon reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh, he was taken on deputation on23rd January, 2003 and posted as Deputy General Manager of the State Industrial Development Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "SIDCUL"),a Government undertaking of the State of Uttarakhand. While working as the Deputy General Manager of SIDCUL, a trap was laid on 30th of June, 2004and he was arrested while accepting an illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/-. This led to lodging of Criminal Case No. 168 of 2004 at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The accused was repatriated on the same day to his parent organization by the State Government of Uttarakhand. It also granted sanction for his prosecution on 23rd of August, 2004 and the charge sheet was submitted on 25th of August, 2004 in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption-II, Nainital. Accused prayed for discharge, inter alia contending that the materials on record are not sufficient for framing of the charge and further, in the absence of valid sanction from the competent authority, as required under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, the trial cannot legally proceed.
↧
Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat [18/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2005]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2004, passed in Special Civil Application No.5759 of 1999, by way of which the challenge to punishment order of compulsory retirement of the appellant has been turned down. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: That the appellant had joined the Gujarat State Judicial Service in 1978, and was promoted subsequently as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 1992. She was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rural) in Ahmedabad. In December 1991, she was trying one Gautam Ghanshyam Jani in CBI Case No.5 of 1991 for the offence of misappropriation and embezzlement of public money. The accused filed a complaint with the CBI on 19.8.1993, against the appellant alleging that she had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 17.8.1993 as illegal gratification, to pass order in his favour, through one C.B. Gajjar, Advocate. As it was not possible for the complainant to pay the said amount, the appellant had agreed to accept the same in installments, and in order to facilitate the said complainant's efforts to arrange the said amount in part, she had even granted adjournment. The said complaint filed with the CBI was referred to the High Court and in pursuance thereof, a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the appellant in which statements of various persons including C.B. Gajjar and G.G. Jani were recorded. The Court then suspended the appellant vide order dated 21.1.1994, and directed a regular enquiry appointing Shri M.C. Patel, Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as the Enquiry Officer.
↧