R VS Lichniak - 25 Nov 02

Mandatory life sentence for murder has a denunciatory value, expressing society s view of a crime which has long been regarded with peculiar abhorrence.

India - Supreme Court


S. Prakash VS K. M. Kurian - 13 May 99

Important PointNo part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place.

India - Supreme Court


GOSWAMI WADHWA COMMISSION OF INQUIRY VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - 21 Aug 89

Commissions of Inquiries Act, 1952 - Section 8B — Whether the case diaries/record of investigation by CBI could be summoned and produced under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Held: there is no such bar.

India - Delhi


Rakesh VS State of Rajashtan - 03 May 00

In absence of evidence that finger prints were given by accused voluntarily, finger print expert evidence that chance finger print tallied with specimen prints could not read against accused.

India - Crimes


Krishan VS State of Haryana - 04 Mar 09

Criminal Law--Murder--Circumstantial evidence--Hostile witness--Appeal against conviction--Case of blind murder as dead body of deceased was found lying in abandoned plot--Material witnesses not supporting case of prosecution and turned hostile--Chain of prosecution case not complete and link evidence missing--Prosecution story seems to be suspicious if statement of all witnesses alongwith circumstances are considered together--Circumstantial evidence not sufficient to hold accused guilty for alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt--Accused acquitted--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 201. (Paras 17, 18, 22, 23, 24 & 25)

India - Punjab


Sedmal Jainarain Seoni VS National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 18 Sep 91

(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 17 - Complaint against Insurance Company filed under - Damage to the vehicle insured with the company - Arbitration clause - Would not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission - Provisions of this Act as per Section 3 of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. (Paras 8 & 8.1)(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 17 - Complaint under - Insurance Claim - Car was insured for the sum of Rs. 80,000/- - Accident - The vehicle was not beyond repairs - It was not a case of total loss - Estimated cost of repair comes to Rs. 45,719/- - However, the complainant is not entitled for the damage caused to the business as such losses are not covered by the provisions of the Act - Complainant is entitled for Rs, 45,719/- as loss and 12% p.a. interest from the date of accident with Rs. 1,000/- as transportation charges with costs. (Paras 25...

India - Consumer


A. R. Narayanan VS Manager, UCO Bank - 26 Mar 91

(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 14(1)(d) - Consumer - Definition of - Provision of facilities in connection with banking is one of the services within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Act - the Complainant who has hired the banking services of the Bank by opening an account depositing title deeds and executing hypothecation bond and promissory notes is a consumer as defined in section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. (Para 4)(ii) Consumer/Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2 & 14 - Jurisdiction - the sanctioning of loans and the grant of O.D. facilities by the Banks are matters within their exclusive discretion - it is not open to the Consumer Forum to substitute its judgment for the decision of the banks. (Ram Kripal Bhargavas case: 1991 C.P.J.23 (National Commission): Relied upon)Held: The grievance of the complainant is against the sanctioning of credit f...

India - Consumer


RAMENDRA SRIVASTAVA VS STATE OF U. P. - 15 May 09

Education—Examination—Preliminary Examination (Combined State/Lower Subordinate Services) 2007—Petitioner's form for, had to reach U.P.P.S.C. by 5.00 p.m. 31st March, 2009 by registered post—But, reached in office of U.P.P.S.C. on 1st April, 2009—Resulting in its rejection—Whether post office in this case, was agent of petitioner—Petitioner has already qualified in preliminary examination—More than one lac candidates have appeared in that examination—Out of only about 2000 candidates have cleared preliminary examination—And, very meritorious students will, thus, lose chance of appearing in main examination—Secondly, registered letter was sent by petitioners on 28.3.2009 by registered speed post—Thus, presumption that petitioner has a bona fide belief that in normal course his letter would have reached office of U.P.P.S.C. within 48 hours—Held, post office, in this case, was agent of petitioner—Thus, Commission directed to accept form of petitioner, if same is submitted personally by 30...

India - Allahabad


STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DWARKA PRASAD - 25 Jul 17

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 354, 313, 43 – Indian Penal Code – Section 302, 201, 364 – Conviction – Prosecution – Contradictions in statement – Capital punishment – Liable – Murder – Dacoity – Provocation – Testimony – Guilt of accused – Imprisonment – Present death reference and appeal arise out of Judgment dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Nagaur in Sessions Case and are being disposed of by this common order since, they arise out of same order – Learned trial Court by judgment aforesaid convicted appellant Dwarka Prasad for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced with capital punishment – Besides aforesaid conviction, learned trial Court also convicted accused/appellant Dwraka Prasad for offences under Sections 201 & 364 IPC – By Criminal death reference filed by State, same is before us for confirmation – Held, In entirety, court is of view that there is no material available on record to suggest that appellant is such a hardcore crimina...

India - Rajasthan


Alok Sinha VS Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. - 26 Jul 17

Location of branch office cannot confer territorial jurisdiction on Consumer Forum of that place.

India - Consumer