Tweet

Today at around 4:00 PM Sanjay Dutt surrendered at the Tada Court (Court 54 City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai).

Mr Dutt reached Court around 2:00 PM but took a long time to enter as he was mobbed by hundreds of people(both fans & media) making it very difficult for him to enter. After a plea by the actor himself, Dutt finally managed to walk inside the City Civil & Sessions Court around 2:30 PM to surrender and undergo his prison term in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case.

Dutt, with a red 'tilak' on the forehead and a tabiz in red string, entered the Court 54 (Tada Court) his wife Manyata & sister Pryanka around 2:30 PM and sat at the chair for the entire period except when he was called in the witness box for identification. He seemed calm and prepared for facing the jail term.

His Lawyer filed Application for allowing Dutt to have some ‘extra benefits’. Out of the list many of them were allowed including medicines, separate fan, bedding etc. However the plea for having ‘electronic cigarette’ ( a instrument which are used to reduce smoking) was not allowed.

It has been informed that from the Court he will be taken to the Arthur Road Jail. From there, he will be moved to Pune's Yerawada Jail to begin the 42 months left of the five-year jail term he was handed by the Supreme Court.

Tweet

KERALA HIGH COURT (D.B.)

Before :- B.M. Thulasidas and K.A. Mohamed Shaffi, JJ.
Crl. A. No. 372 of 1993

Sathi  Versus State of Kerala, D/d. 20.8.1996

For the Appellant :- Mr. S.K. Balachandran, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Kallada Sukumaran, Director General of Prosecution and Mrs. G. Krishnakumari, Public Prosecutor.

Indian Penal Code, Sections 84 and 302 - Insanity - Accused and deceased both women were lesbians - Accused killing the deceased - Plea of insanity by accused not tenable - Lesbianism is a sort of perversity and not insanity. [Para 8]

Tweet

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Criminal Revision No. 1970 of 2004. 

Baljinder alias Bantu Versus U.T. Chandigarh,D/d. 8.12.2004

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Section 12 - Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 - Juvenile Offender - Accused aged 15 years - Set fire to a girl aged 13 years as she refused to develop love affair wih him - Accused released on bail although crime was heinous - Merely, because he is alleged to have committed a heinous crime, it cannot be said that his release will defeat the ends of justice.
[Para 5]

Cases referred :

Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 1984(1) Recent Criminal Reports 444.
Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) Recent Criminal Reports 89.
Shabuddin @ Shabboo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003(1) RCR 498.

Tweet

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Viney Mittal, J.
Crl. Misc. No. 19317-M of 1997. D/d. 20.8.2002.

Baljit Singh Versus State of Punjab

For the Petitioners :- Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. H.P.S. Raja, AAG, Punjab.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Section 22 - Recovery of medicines from accused containing narcotic (Proxyvon Capsule, Diazepam Tablets etc.) - These are manufactured drugs and do not fall within ambit of NDPS Act - FIR quashed. 1997(2) RCR(Cri.) 417 relied on.
[Para 3]

Cases referred :

Deep Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 417.
Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 245 (P&H).
Leela Ram v. State of Punjab, 2002(3) RCR(Crl.) 805 (P&H).

Tweet

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Harbans Lal, J.
Crl.Misc. No. 50473 M of 2007

Tejpal Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, D/d. 13.2.2008

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate.
For the Respondents :- Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Section 22 - Pharmacy Act, 1948, Section 32(2) - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Sections 18 and 23 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, Rule 66 - Accused a registered Pharmacist and having a licence to stock, and sell the drugs - Raid conducted by police and recovered drugs containing psychotropic substances - According to opinion of Drug Inspector the drugs did not contain contraband in excess of permissible limit - As per Rule 66(1) of the NDPS Rules any person holding valid drug sale licenses can stock for sale, distribution the drug in question after following the conditions as enshrined under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Proceedings quashed. 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 724 (P&H) and 2006(4) RCR(Crl.) 974 : 2006(3) Apex Criminal 646 (SC) relied.
[Paras 10 to 13]

Cases referred :

Rajeev Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 846 (P&H).
Chandhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 724 (P&H).
State of Uttaranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, 2006(4) RCR(Crl.) 974 : 2006(3) Apex Criminal 646 (SC).

Tweet

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Sham Sunder, J.
Crl. Appeal No. 2064-SB of 2008

Bhura Ram S/o Jai Ram R/o Nangal, P.S. Ratia, Haryana Versus The State of Punjab, D/d. 17.11.2008

For the Appellant :- Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. S.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15 - Reduction of sentence - Minor recovery of contraband - He has been facing the criminal proceedings, since 10.9.2003 - Fit case, warranting the reduction of sentence -
Sentence reduced from one year R.I. to 5 months R.I.
[Para 10 and 12]

Tweet

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Jitendra Chauhan, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 532-SB of 2001

Jaspal Singh @ Satta and another Versus State of Punjab, D/d. 10.11.2010

For the Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 532-SB of 2001) :- Mr. R.K. Handa, Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocates.
For the Respondent (in Crl. A. No. 702-SB of 2001) :- Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307, 397 and 34 - Arrest of Accused - Accused persons (2) armed with pistols, snatched Rs. 81,500/- from the petrol pump - Test Identification parade not held - Accused not previously known to the complainants - Identified first time in Court - However accused were specifically named in the FIR - Vital contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of occurrence - Robes the Prosecution Version of its Veracity - Accused conviction under Section 397 IPC and sentence of 7 years RI set aside.
[Paras 16, 22, 23]
B. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307, 394 and 34 - Medical evidence and ocular evidence - Prosecution version that accused fired a pistol shot from distance of 5-6 korams - Medical evidence injury suffered is possible if shot was given from 12 bore pistol from a distance of 6 mches to 3 feet - Moreover it must spread in the area of 15 to 16 inches - In instant case, injury was not spread even in the area indicated above - Held, ocular version totally inconsistent with medical version - Conviction of accused under Section 307 IPC set aside.
[Paras 18 and 22]

Cases Referred :

Mahabir v. State of Delhi, 2008(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 5 : 2008(3) R.A.J. 510 : JT 2008(5) SC 308.
Matru v. State of U.P., 1971(2) SCC 75.
Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, 1973(2) SCC 406.

Tweet

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- R.M. Lodha and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2004

Amar Singh Versus State of Rajasthan, D/d. 03.08.2010

IMPORTANT Dowry death - Allegation of harassment and torture by making demand of dowry - No evidence as to what was the exact act or conduct of accused by which the deceased felt tortured - Conviction set aside.

IMPORTANT Demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC - What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband on the woman.

With Criminal Appeal No. 1411 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4389 of 2004)

State of Rajasthan Versus Jagdish & Anr.

For the Appearing Parties :- Dr. Manish Singhvi, Addl. Adv. General, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Uma Dutta, Kishan Datta, Devanshu Kr. Devesh, Milind Kumar, Advocates.

A. Indian Penal Code, Section 498A - Indian Penal Code, Section 304B - Dowry death - Acquittal of all accused except husband - Allegation against husband, his mother and brother that they demanded scooter and harassed and teased the bride - Death of bride by burning - Conviction of mother and brother set aside - No evidence as to what was the exact act and conduct of mother and brother by which the deceased felt tortured - So far husband is concerned he used to taunt that deceased had come from hungry house - This is evidence of exact conduct which caused harassment to deceased - Held :-
1. A prosecution witness who merely uses the word "harassed" or "tortured" and does not describe the exact conduct of the accused which, according to him, amounted to harassment or torture may not be believed by the Court in cases under Section 498A and 304B IPC.
2. Husband sentenced to life imprisonment, but sentence reduced to 10 years RI.
[Paras 21 to 24]
B. Indian Penal Code, Section 498A - Indian Penal Code, Section 304-B - Dowry death - Allegation that mother and brother of accused (husband) demanded dowry of scooter or Rs. 25000/- from bride for the accused - Death of bride - No evidence that she was harassed or subjected to cruelty by them - No offence under Section 498A or 304B IPC against mother and brother made out - Held :-
Demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC - What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC is the act or cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband on the woman.
[Para 22]
C. Indian Penal Code, Section 304B - Reduction in Sentence - Dowry death within 10 months of marriage - The bride was strangulated and thereafter burnt - Husband sentenced to life imprisonment - Sentence reduced to 10 years since there is no evidence as to actual role played by accused in the death of deceased - Held :-
Where there is no evidence as to the actual part played by the accused, a minimum sentence of seven years would serve the ends of justice. 1991(2) RCR (Crl.) 55 relied.
[Paras 17 and 18]
D. Indian Penal Code, Section 304B - Indian Penal Code, Section 498A - Dowry death - Evidence that deceased was tortured by accused by making demand of dowry - No evidence what was the exact act and conduct of accused which caused harassment to deceased - Accused may not be convicted where there is no evidence of exact conduct which amounted to harassment - Conviction set aside.
[Paras 21 to 24]
E. Indian Penal Code, Section 304B - Soon before Death - Deceased told her mother and brother that accused (husband) made a demand of scooter or Rs. 25,000/- and used to taunt the deceased that she had come from a hungry home - Death of deceased by burning a month after she last visited her mother - Held, it proved that soon before her death the deceased has been subjected by the appellant to taunt in connection with demand for dowry.
[Paras 10, 13 and 15]
F. Evidence Act, Sections 32 and 60 - Indian Penal Code, Section 304B - Hearsay evidence - Dying declaration - Death of bride by burning at marital home within 10 months of marriage - Evidence of mother and brother that deceased had been telling them she was being harassed by her husband and in- laws by making demand of dowry - Contention of defence that evidence was hearsay evidence and was not admissible in evidence under Section 60 of Evidence Act - Contention not tenable - Evidence of mother and brother of deceased is no doubt hearsay, but is admissible under Section 32(1) of Evidence Act - Held :-
Even if the deceased was nowhere near expectation of death, still her statement would become admissible under Section 32 of Evidence Act.(1984) 4 SCC 116, AIR 1939 PC 47 relied.
[Paras 11, 12 and 13]

Cases Referred :

Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder v. State of West Bengal, 2007(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 395 : 2007(2) R.A.J. 49 : (2008) 1 SCC 202.
Durga Prasad v. State of M.P., 2010(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 219 : 2010(6) SCALE 18.
Rattan Singh v. State of H.P., 1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 550 : (1997) 4 SCC 161.
Latu Mahto v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), 2008(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 467 : 2008(4) R.A.J. 199 : (2008) 8 SCC 395.
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 758 : (1998) 3 SCC 309.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47.
Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana, 1991(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 55 : (1991) 1 SCC 371.
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 695 : (2000) 5 SCC 207.

Tweet

DELHI HIGH COURT

Before :- G.R. Luthra, J.
Criminal Misc. (Main) 979 of 1985

Inder Raj Malik and ors. Versus Ms. Sunita Malik, D/d. 30.1.1986

For the Petitioners :- Mr. K.K. Sud with Mr. Rajiv Chauhan Advocate & Mr. K.K. Rai, Advocate and Mr. A.K. Bajpai, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Swatantar Kumar, Advocate with Ms. Geeta Mittal, Advocate.

A. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4 - Indian Penal Code, Section 498A - Demand of dowry and harassment - A person demanding dowry can both be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC as also under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act simultaneously - Doctrine of double jeopardy is not applicable - Section 498A is not ultra vires the Constitution.
Section 498A IPC does not create any situation of double jeopardy. That provision is distinguishable from Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because in the latter mere demand of dowry is punishable and existence of Element of cruelty is not necessary. Section 498A IPC deals with aggravated form of the offence. It, inter alia, punishes such demands of property or valuable security from the wife of her relative as are coupled offences punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and section 498A IPC. It is just a case similar to section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 409 IPC even if the accused had been acquitted of an offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that Article 20(2) of the Constitution had no application. It may be mentioned that the said provision of the Constitution says that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than one.
[Para 24]
B. Indian Penal Code, Section 498A (as amended on 25.12.1983 by Criminal Law Second Amendment 1983) - Allegations made in the complaint regarding demand of Dowry and harassment pertained to period prior to coming into force Section 498A - Complaint maintained on facts of the case.
[Para 18]

Cases referred :

Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, AIR 1976 SC 1947 (1976 Suppl. SCR 123).
L.V. Jadhav v. Shankarrao Abasahad, 1983(2) RCR(Crl.) 400 (SC) : AIR 1983 S.C. 1219.
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 539 (SC) : AIR 1985 SC 628.
State of Madhya Pradhesh v. Veerashwar Rao Agnihotri, AIR 1957 SC 592.
Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 911.