Criminal Laws  - Remarks

Dilution/dropping of - Charge - Remarks - Inspecting ld. Judge - High Court - Appellant not framing charge under Section 302 (IPC) - When record warranted - High Court Administration denied him Selection grade - Appellant took voluntary retirement - Filed appeal - In case appellant found - No sufficient material to frame the charge under Section 302 of IPC - Reason given for dropping the charge under Section 302 was totally inadequate and untenable, and showed a non-application of mind by the appellant to the statements in the charge-sheet and the medical record - Supreme Court -Appellant had failed in discharging his duty - In framing the correct charge, also noted that his record was not good - High Court could not have granted him the selection grade, High Court has denied the selection grade to the appellant - Impugned order contained nothing but a correctional suggestion to the High Court Administration - Which the Administration has accepted - Appeal dismissed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 156 (3)

Treated as complaint - Order challenged - High Court set aside - Remarks against Magistrate - Non applying judicial mind - Appeal by Magistrate - Set aside - Judicial Discipline- Higher forum not to make remarks - Restrained from making.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 163-A , Section 166

Compensation - Claim petition - Tribunal partly allowing petition under Section 163A of the Act for payment of sum of Rs.2,65,500/- with 12% interest - Tribunal permitting the petitioners to proceed with the petition filed under Section 166 of the Act - Orders of Tribunal affirmed by ld. Single Judge - Appeal against - Remedy for payment of compensation under Sections 163A and 166 are final and independent of each other - No claimant can pursue the remedies thereunder simultaneously - A claimant must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under Section 163A or under Section 166 of the Act, but not under both - Claimants having obtained compensation, finally determined under Section 163A of the Act precluded from proceeding further with the petition filed under Section 166 of the Act - Orders of the Tribunal & High Court illegal - Set aside - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 406

Transfer petition - Deceased killed by the accused - Son of the deceased seeking transfer of proceedings from Haridwar to Delhi - Ground of transfer - Coercion and threat to the witnesses as well as doubtful sincerity of the investigating agency and prosecuting agency - Evidence showing that several letters/ applications written by the petitioner about the threats administered to him and his family by the accomplices of the accused - No action taken by the SSP, Haridwar or by Government of Uttarakhand - No protection afforded to the petitioner and his family to thwart such threats - Driver of the deceased an eye-witness of the murder - Driver turned hostile due to threats - Accused belong to powerful gang operating in U.P. - Circumstances showing it difficult for the witnesses to safely depose truth because of fear of being haunted by those against whom they have to depose - Directions issued to transfer the case from Haridwar to competent Court of jurisdiction at Delhi - Petition allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Representation of People Act, 1951  - Section 80 , Section 80-A , Section 81 , Section 116-A

Election Rules, 1961 - Election petition - Non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Election Rules of 1961 - Prayer to declare the election of the respondent No. 2 void and to order re polling - Petition rejected - Appeal against - Learned Judge holding that initial voting, which had taken place at the non-notified place, had not materially affected the election result of the respondent No. 2 - Non-compliance of the provisions made by the officers who were in-charge of the conduct of the election and not by the elected candidate - Evidence tendered by the witnesses of the appellant showing that none of them had seen big number of voters returning back without casting their votes because the polling station was initially arranged at a non-notified place - Appellant failed to prove that because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, the election of the respondent No. 2 was materially affected - No illegality in the impugned order - Order of Ld. Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement