Naga People'S Movement, Of Human ...

vs Union Of India
The Central Act was enacted in 1958 to enable Certain special powers to be conferred upon the
members of the armed forces in the disturbed areas in the State of Assam and the Union Territory of
Manipur. By Act 7 of 1972 and Act 69 of 1986 the Central Act was amended and it extends to the
whole of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalya, Mizoram, Nagaland and
Tripura. The expression "disturbed area" has been defined in Section 12(b) to mean an area which is
for the time being declared by notification under section 3 to be a disturbed area. Section 3 makes
provision for issuance of a notification declaring the whole or any part of State or Union Territory to
which the Act is applicable to be a disturbed area. In the said provision, as originally enacted, the
power to issue the notification was only conferred on the Governor of the State or the Administrator
of the Union Territory. By the Amendment Act of 1972 power to issue a notification under the said
provision can also be exercised by the Central Government. Under Section 4 a commissioned officer,
warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces
has been conferred special powers in the disturbed areas in respect of matters specified (n clauses (a)
to (d) of the said section. Section 5 imposes requirement that a person arrested in exercise of the
powers conferred under the Act must be handed over to the officer incharge of the nearest police
station together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest. Section 6 confers protection
to persons acting under the Act and provides that no prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall
be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in
respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the act.

The state Act was enacted with a view to make better provision for the suppression of dis-order and
for restoration and maintenance of public order in the disturbed areas in Assam. Section 2 of the Stat
Act also defines disturbed area to mean an area which is for the time being declared by notification
underSection 3 to be a disturbed area. Section 3 days down that the State Government may, by
notification in the official gazette of Assam, declare the whole or any part of any district of Assam, as
may be specified in the notification, to be a disturbed area. Sections 4 and 5 confer on a Magistrate or
police officer not below the rank of sub-Inspector or Havildar in case of Armed Branch of the police r
any officer of the Assam Rifles not below the rank of Havildar/Jamadar powers similar to those
conferred under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4 of the Central Act. Section 6 confers protection
similar to that conferred by Section 5 of the Central Act.

Prem Chand Garg vs Excise Commissioner, U. P.

The petitioners Prem Chand Garg, 8 Anr., partners of M/s. Industrial Chemical Corporation, Ghaziabad, have
filed under Art. 32 petition No. 348 of 1961 impeaching the validity of the order passed by the Excise
Commissioner refusing permission to the Distillery to supply power alcohol to the petitioners. This petition was
admitted on December 12, 1961 and a Rule was ordered to be issued to the respondents, the Excise
Commissioner of U.P., Allahabad, and the State of U. P. At the time when the rule was thus issued, this Court
directed under the impugned Rule that the petitioners should deposit a security of Rs. 2,500/- in cash within six
weeks. According to the practice of this Court prevailing since 1959, this order is treated as a condition
precedent for issuing rule Nisi to the impleaded respon- dents. The petitioners found it difficult to raise this
amount and so, on January 24, 1962, they moved this Court for a modification of the said order as to security.
This application was dismissed, but the petitioners were given further time to deposit the said amount by March
26, 1962. This order was passed on March 15, 1962. The petitioners then tried to collect the requisite fund, but
failed in their efforts, and that has led to the present petition filed on March 24, 1962. By this petition, the
petitioners contend that the impugned Rule, in so far as it relates to the giving of security, is ultra vires, because
it contravenes the fundamental right guranteed to the petitioners under Art. 32 of the Constitution.

Nasreen Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. And Ors

According to the petitioners they are Artists and the undertake work of acting, modelling etc. on contract basis
and they work for M/s. V.V. Movies situate at 24, Strechey Road, Allahabad and the proprietor is Sri N. B.
Montrose. In the night of 17th July, 1989, when the petitioners had gone back from M/s. V.V. Movies, the
respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and their subordinates falsely implicated the petitioners in case Crime No. 484 of 1989
under Section 292, IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad and got them arrested from their house.
However, it is not in dispute that both petitioners later were released on bail. According to the petitioners, the
respondents did not recover any incriminating or obscene work of the petitioners, Yet they were named and
falsely implicated in the aforesaid case.

Savita Kumari (Ms) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr

One Sham Lai alias Sham Sunder alongwith two others were tried for offences punishable under Sections
302, 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and the trial court convicted all the three of them and sentenced each one of them
to undergo imprisonment for life and also other terms of imprisonment and to pay some fine. The sentences
were directed to run concurrently. They preferred an appeal to the High Court and the High Court agreeing with
the findings of the trial court dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same they preferred S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 970/85
in this Court but the same was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 18.11.85. It appears that during the
pendency of the appeal before the High Court, Sham Lai filed a petition to take action under the Punjab Borstal
Act, 1926 but the same was dismissed. Against the order, it appears that a different S.L.P. was filed but that was
also dismissed and we are not concerned with that at this stage. As against the order dismissing S.L.P (Crl.) No.
970/85, Review Petition No. 134/89 was filed. Writ Petition No. 322 of 1988 was filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India questioning the vires of the provisions of the Punjab Borstal Act on the ground that they
are inconsistent with and are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. We will first take up Review
Petition No. 134/89 filed by Sham Lai, A-2. Review Petition No. 134/89 in S.L.P. (CrL) No. 970/85

2. Sham Lai was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of which to undergo further R.I. for 1-1/2 years, under Section 307 I.P.C. to
undergo five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default of payment of which to undergo further R.I. for one
year and also under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. to undergo three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of
payment of which to undergo further R.I. for one year. These convictions and sentences are confirmed by the
High Court. As against that, he along with other two convicted accused filed S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 970/85 which was
dismissed by this Court and the present Review Petition is filed against the dismissal order in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.
970/85 by Sham Lai alone. It may be mentioned here that notice has already been ordered on this review
petition. From the contents of the review petition it can be seen that tho petitioner sought review not only on the
ground of legality of the conviction but also on the question of sentence namely that he should have been sent to
the Borstal School as he was aged only 21 years then. To appreciate these contentions we shall state a few facts
which led to the filing of this review petition as well as the writ petition.

3. The petitioner alongwith other two accused were tried for causing the death of one Kashmir Singh on 30.4.82
and also attempting to cause the death of Balbir Singh and Bishan Singh. This occurrence took place because of
a land dispute. On the day of occurrence the deceased and the two injured witnesses were returning to the
village after harvesting the crop in a tractor to which a trolley was attached. The deceased was driving the
tractor. Balbir Singh, P.W. 7 and Bishan Singh P.W. 8 were sitting on the mud-guard and Dalip Singh, P.W. 6
was sitting in the trolley. When they reached near the Karyana Shop in the grain market they found all the
accused there. Tek Chand, A-1 was carrying a double-barrel gun and the petitioner Sham Lal was carrying a
revolver and Tilak Raj was carrying a stick. It is alleged that Tilak Raj raised a lalkara. Thereupon Tek Chand
fired his gun causing injury to Bishan Singh, P.W. 8 and the petitioner Sham Lal fired at Kashmir Singh
deceased and he also caused injury to Balbir Singh, P.W. 7 on the left leg. During the same occurrence Tilak
Raj, A-3 also was seriously injured. People gathered there and the accused are alleged to have run away. During
the post-mortem conducted on the dead body of Kashmir Singh, the Doctor P.W. 3 found two wounds, one entry
wound and another exist wound which could have been caused by single gun-shot. On Balbir Singh, another
doctor, P.W. 4 found one punctured wound and on Bishan Singh, he found only two abrasions. Tilak Raj was
also admitted in the hospital. The petitioner in his statement stated that on 30.4.82 at about 8.30 P.M. Tilak Raj
and farm servant went in a tractor trolley loaded with grains for marketing. He and his father Tek Chand started
in their matador van and overtook their tractor near the turning in the market. Near that point they saw a tractor
driven by Dalip Singh, P.W. 6 coming from the opposite direction and in the trolley of that tractor, Bishan
Singh, Balbir Singh, Shingara Singh P.Ws and Kashmir Singh deceased were riding. They tried to dash against
the trolley driven by the petitioner and his father. Thereupon Dalip Singh hurled abuses. The petitioner got down
and fired into the air. Thereafter they went into the market and they were sitting on a cot lying in front of the
shop. At that time Bishan Singh armed with a Karai, Kashmir Singh armed with a dang fitted with iron patti and
Balbir Singh, Shingara Singh armed with dangs chased them. Bishan Singh tried to snatch the gun from Tek
Chand, father of the petitioner. This Tilak Raj tried to resist. Thereupon the deceased gave a dang blow on the
head of Tilak Raj and other witnesses also gave blows to Tilak Raj who became unconscious. The petitioner's
father Tek Chand also received injuries. The Petitioner also was attacked by the deceased and Ors. and caused
him injuries. At that juncture, the petitioner took out a revolver and fired two shots in the air but the deceased
and other P.Ws did not desist from attacking. Then in order to save himself, his father and Tilak Raj the
petitioner fired at Kashmir Singh and Balbir Singh. From the above stand taken by the petitioner, it can be seen
that the petitioner specifically pleaded self-defence. The Doctor, D.W. 2 who examined Tek Chand found as
many as 14 contusions all over the body and injury No. 13 was an incised wound on the leg. The same Doctor
also examined the petitioner and on him he found one incised wound and two contusions. On Tilak Raj, the
other accused there were very serious injuries and he was examined by a Doctor, P.W. 4 who examined other
P.Ws also. The Doctor found on Tilak Raj one lacerated wound 1.5 cm x. 25 cm vertical on the forehead
bleeding. There was another lacerated wound 3 cm x .5 cm and vertical line was 4.5 cm x .5 cm on the left side
of the head in front of parietal region. The Doctor also stated that Tilak Raj was in semi conscious condition.
The Doctor further opined that injury No. 2 was grievous as it resulted in the fracture of the frontal parietal
bone. It is important to note that the prosecution has not come forward with a plausible and acceptable
explanation for the presence of these injuries on the accused. The High Court has not considered the importance
of this aspect in a proper perspective.

K. Vidya Sagar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

Smt. Tara Bhatt (respondent No. 4) gave on rent the ground floor of flat bearing No. B- 99, Sector 15, NOIDA,
to him in September, 1995 on a rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. Initially a lease agreement was executed for eleven
months, which contained a stipulation that the rent would be increased by 10% every year. The respondent No. 4
demanded an increase of 30% at the time of renewal of lease in March, 1997 and threatened that in case he
failed to pay the enhanced rent, he would be evicted from the premises by use of force. The petitioner then filed
Civil Suit No. 411 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Ghaziabad seeking a relief of prohibitory injunction
for restraining the respondent No. 4 from evicting him wherein an ex-parte interim injunction was granted in his
favour on 28.3.1997, which was confirmed on 31.1.1998. The petitioner along with his family left for his native
place in Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh on 15.5.1998 after locking his residential premises, which contained
household items like furniture, refrigerator, TV, files of his clients and library books, etc. The respondent No. 4,
however, lodged an FIR on 18.5.1998 at Police Station Sector 20, NOIDA alleging that on 15.5.1998 she along
with her family had gone to attend a marriage from where she came back late in the night. In the morning of
16.5.1998 she found that the doors of the residential premises, which was in the occupation of the petitioner,
were wide open and that the petitioner had left the place and had also removed his goods. In the FIR a request
was made that the premises may be inspected. The petitioner returned from his native place on 9.7.1998 and
found that the respondent No. 4 had illegally taken possession of the premises, which was under his occupation.
He then lodged an FIR about the incident at the concerned police station on 9.7.1998. The plea of the petitioner
further is that by virtue of an order passed by this Court on 5.2.1999 the CBI was entrusted the job of
investigating the criminal case, which had been registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by him. The CBI was
able to recover his goods worth more than Rupees one lakh but the court files could not be found. After
completing the investigation the CBI filed a charge-sheet for prosecution of respondent No. 4 under Sections
380 and 454 I.P.C. in the Court of Special Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun wherein the charges have been framed on
5.2.2002. The respondent No. 4 preferred criminal revision against the aforesaid order before the Sessions
Judge, Dehradun, in which the record of the trial court was summoned and a large number of dates had been
fixed. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a transfer application before this Court, which was allowed on
22.1.2004 and the criminal case and also the criminal revision were transferred to Delhi.

Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni ... vs The State Of Madras And Others

These petitions by the holder of Kavalappara Sthanam, his wife, daughters and soil
challenged the constitutional validity of the Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of
Doubts) Act, 1955 passed by the Madras Legislature soon after the Privy Council had
declared the properties in possession of the Sthanee to be Sthanam properties in which the
members of the tarwad had not interest. Section 2 Of the Act, which
contained the substantive provision, was as follows:--
" 2. Notwithstanding any decision of Court, any sthanam in
respect of which:-
(a) there is or had been at any time an intermingling of
the properties of the sthanam and the properties of the
tarwad, or
(b) the members of the tarwad have been receiving main.
tenance from the properties purporting to be sthanam
properties as of right, or in pursuance of a custom or
otherwise, or
(c)there had at any time been a vacancy caused by there
being, no male member of the tarwad eligible to succeed to
the Sthanam,
888
shall be deemed to be and shall be deemed always to have
been a Marumakkathayam tarwad and the properties
appertaining to such a sthanam shall be deemed to be and
shall be deemed always to have been properties belonging to
the tarwad to which -.he provisions of the Madras
Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 (Mad. XXII of 1933), shall
apply."

Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the general elections for the Legislative Assembly of the
State of Chhattisgarh was held on 1st December, 2003 and the results of the same were declared on 4th
December, 2003. The petitioner at the relevant time was the Chief Minister and till the new Chief Minister was
sworn in on 7th December, 2003 the petitioner was working as Acting Chief Minister. After declaring the results
on 4th December, 2003, the Indian National Congress secured 37 seats, Bhartiya Janata Party secured 50 seats,
B.S.P. secured 2 seats and the National Congress Party secured 1 seat.

3. As per the First Information Report (Annexure-R/l) lodged on 7-12-2003 at 2 am by Shri Virendra Pandey at
the Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur, the Acting Chief Minister Shri Ajit Jogi, his son Amit Jogi
and Shri B. R. Khunte, Member of Parliament had entered into a criminal conspiracy to split the newly elected
M.L.A.S of Bhartiya Janata Party by giving them a bribe of Rs. 45/- lakhs and in furtherance of that conspiracy
on 5-12-2003 in the afternoon he received the telephonic call from Shri B. R. Kunte that if efforts are made, Shri
Baliram Kashyap can become the Chief Minister and in this respect Shri Ajit Jogi can also render his help.
When he enquired from Shri Kunte how it is possible then he replied that if out of the newly B.J.P. M.L.A.s six
M.L.A.S break the party then Mr. Jogi will ensure that those M.L.A.s receive the support of 37 M.L.A.s of
Congress, 2 M.L.A.s of B.S.P. and one M.L.A. of National Congress Party. Then he asked him to telephone
after two hours and after two hours Mr. Khunte again telephoned him then he again asked Mr. Khunte to
telephone in the night, but he expressed his inability to telephone in the night and said that he would telephone
in the morning. In the meantime, he installed the voice-recording instrument on his telephone number 2442766
and when in the morning Mr. Khunte telephoned him, his conversation was recorded. From his conversation
with Mr.Khunte, he could sense and assess that they have conspired to break some B.J.P. M.L.A.s by giving
them bribe to ensure that with the support of those M.L.A.s Baliram Kashyap is stalled as Chief Minister. In that
respect Mr. Khunte assured him the support of Mr. Ajit Jogi and after his talk with Khunte, Mr. Jogi also
telephoned him on the same number and the conversation with Mr. Ajit Jogi has also been recorded in the
cassette which he was producing. During the telephonic conversation Mr. Jogi assured him of political help as
well as financial help and he said that he would be sending Rs. 15-20/- lakhs through Mr. Khunte and in that
sequence after two hours Mr. Khunte telephoned him and informed that Rs. 20/- lakhs has reached to him, he
would be sending along with his son Bunti. After reaching near the Mining Department building he telephoned
from his telephone number 5031201 and after some time Bunti came in ah ambassador car and on the rear seat
of the ambassador car there were two bags one of which was black colour and the other was white. Those bags
were taken by his driver and kept in his vehicle. Thereafter he informed the Central Leaders about the receipt of
the money and about the conversation recorded on the cassette. They advised him to proceed further. Thereafter
he was continuously in touch with Mr. Khunte over telephone and he informed Mr. Khunte that Mr. Baliram
Kashyap would be coming at about 7-8 in the evening and on his arrival the programme would be arranged for
the meeting with Mr. Jogi. At about 7 p.m. Baliram Kashyap came to him and he informed that on the way he
had a talk with Mr. Jogi and Mr. Jogi assured him that he would help him in becoming the Chief Minister.

4. Mr. Baliram Kashyap informed him that after reaching Raipur he would talk to Mr. Jogi. Thereafter he talked
to Mr. Jogi and Mr. Jogi informed him that Mr. Som Prakash Giri would tell as to at which place they will meet
and ultimately it was decided to meet at an isolated place near Radiant School. Mr. Jogi informed that Mr. Som
Prakash Giri would be with them who would meet at Bhagat Singh Chowk. At about 8-9 p.m. in the night he
along with Baliram Kashyap, Mr. Som Prakash Giri, the bodyguard of Mr. Kashyap and his driver started by a
Scorpio vehicle of Baliram Kashyap. After some time the vehicle was parked on the Uperwara road. Thereafter
one car came from behind, stopped and proceeded ahead. After 15-20 minutes one Tata Safari black colour car,
without number came, that car also went ahead us. Mr. Jogi was in that car. That car stopped after some distance
and he along with Mr. Baliram Kashyap and Som Prakash Giri also boarded that car and sat with Mr. Jogi on the
rear seat and the conversation took place in the vehicle. During that conversation Mr. Jogi gave a letter of
support. Our vehicle was following the vehicle of Mr. Jogi and while returning Mr. Jogi stopped the car and
they alighted from the car. At that time one boy known to Mr. Jogi came in another vehicle and he came near
Amit Jogi to whom he said that the goods which are kept in your car give to them and those goods were Rs. 25/-
lakhs. That boy sat in our vehicle and the vehicle of Mr. Jogi left the scene. He alone with Baliram Kashyap and
that boy started in their vehicle and on Uperwara turn one white long car was standing which was without
number, near that car boy stopped the vehicle and a blue bag which was kept on the rear side about that he said
that Rs. 25/- lakhs are in this bag and Mr. Jogi left Mr. Giri at that place. He sat in their vehicle. They left the
black car and directly came to the office where the press conference was arranged. Since Rs. 45/- lakhs were
with them, therefore, there was a question of security, so he disclosed that fact in the conference and that is why
he is submitting with this report the cash amount, cassette and the letter of Mr. Jogi addressed to His Excellency,
the Governor. Mr. Jogi who is a public servant, he in conspiracy with M. Khunte arranged for the bribe for
taking the political advantage in order to ensure that Mr. Kashyap is stalled as Chief Minister.

Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families Assnandanr Vs. Union of India and Anr

he petitioners claim to have compiled 1528 alleged extra-judicial executions carried out by the police
and security forces in Manipur. It is alleged that a majority of them have been carried out in cold
blood while the victims were in custody and allegedly after torturing them. The compilation was
presented in the form of a Memorandum to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial,
summary or arbitrary executions during his mission to India in March 2012. We do not know what
action has been taken on the Memorandum, but a perusal of the compilation indicates that the place
of encounter is not documented in some cases and the identity of the victim is not known in some
cases. Of these 1528 cases documented by the petitioners, they have made a more elaborate
documentation of 62 cases. For the purposes of the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution, they have referred to 10 specific cases (out of

62) where, according to them, eye-witness accounts exist of extra-judicial executions but the police
and the security forces have justified them as encounters with militants. The details of these 10 cases
are mentioned in the writ petition but it is not necessary for us to individually discuss them.

M. Somashekar And Ors. vs S.A. Subbaraju

First accused M. Somashekar (A-1) is the editor and publisher of a Kannada weekly newspaper called
"Sarpakavalu" edited and published at No. 1181, 5th Block, 6th Cross, Dhobhighat, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10
and second accused K. Sampathkumar (A-2) is the printer of the said newspaper printed at Manjula Printers, No.
77, J.M. Lane, Balepet Cross, Bangalore-53. Under the leadership of the complainant, one Nagarajappa, resident
of Rajajinagar, Bangalore, had received a sum of Rs. 19,500/- as advance agreeing to sell 7 sites in Athiguppe
village near Bangalore in favour of 7 persons in 1979. It was found some time after payment of advance to
Nagarajappa that he was not the owner of the sites which he had agreed to sell to the 7 persons and he had
played fraud on the complainant and his friends. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against the said
Nagarajappa for the offences of fraud and cheating in Chickpet Police Station, Bangalore City. At that stage, the
first accused, who is said to be the friend of Nagarajappa voluntarily introduced himself to the complainant and
represented that he would settle the matter between him and Nagarajappa provided he is given a commission of
Rs. 2,000/-. At the instance of the accused, the matter between the complainant and Nagarajappa was settled on
5-6-1981 and pursuant to that settlement, Nagarajappa gave a post-dated cheque for Rs. 15,000/- to the
complainant. The complainant told the first accused that he would pay his commission of Rs. 2,000/- after the
cheque issued by Nagarajappa was encashed. But the said cheque bounced. Therefore, the complainant refused
to pay the commission of Rs. 2,000/- to the first accused. Thereupon, the first accused became disappointed and
enraged against the complainant. With the ulterior motive of blackmailing and defaming the complainant and
extracting money from him, the first accused got a false and defamatory matter published in his weekly
newspaper "Sarpakavalu" dated 20-8-1981. It is published in another newspaper called "Karmika Vani" of
Bangalore that the first accused in an Ex-Police Constable and he had cheated a good number of unemployed
labourers promising to get them employment.

(b) It is falsely alleged in the defamatory article published by the first accused in his weekly newspaper called
"Sarpakavalu" dated 20-8-1981 and printed by the second accused that he (complainant) has invested his black
money in a business in Bangalore; that he is debaucherous and he has engaged two rooms in a hotel in
Bangalore one room for his business and another room for prostitution and he has cheated one cinema actress by
promising to marry her and further he deals in fake notes by exchanging bags containing fake notes at Madras
and thereby he has duped one of his relatives to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- and the said Vysya Sikhamani of
Chickmagalur has now come to Bangalore and he is a notorious person etc. The first accused has also sent by
post a good number of copies of his "Sarpakavalu" newspaper containing the above defamatory matter to
complainant's friends and relatives and business people of Chickmagalur town in order to defame him and to
bring down his reputation in the eyes of his friends, relatives and business people with whom he is having
business connection. The said allegations are per so defamatory. By printing the newspaper containing the said
defamatory article, the second accused has also committed the offence of defamation.

(c) After receipt of Sarpakavalu newspaper dated 20-8-1981 by post, a good number of his relatives, friends and
people in the business circle of the complainant made enquiries with him and they began to look at him with
disrespect and his business is also affected since then. Dignity, respect, reputation and credit of the complainant
has been very adversely affected since then. Therefore, the accused have committed the offence under section
500 I.P.C. against the complainant.

4. Cognizance of the said complainant for an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. was taken by the trial Magistrate
and summons were issued to both the accused after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and
registering a case against them in C.C. No. 187 of 1981. Both the accused filed Criminal Petition No. 187 of
1982 in this Court under section 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 187 of 1981. (Note :
C.C. No. 187 of 1981 is later registered as C.C. No. 119/83). The said Criminal Petition was dismissed by this
Court as not maintainable by order dated 20-8-1982 with an observation that the accused had not exercised their
right of revision under section 397(1) of the Code and, therefore, the High Court would not interfere with the
order by invoking its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code. Thereafter, the learned trial Magistrate
read out the gist of the accusations made against both the accused by the complainant in his complaint and they
were asked to state what they had to say in respect of the said accusation. Both of them pleaded not guilty to the
said accusation. Therefore, the complainant was called upon to substantiate the allegations he had made against
the accused in his complaint.

Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr

The dispute is between very close and intimate family members. Deceased Gurcharan Singh was the brother of
Bakhtawar Singh and uncle of Darshan Singh. He was the father of Gurdish Singh, PW7, the informant. The
agriculture fields of both brothers, Gurcharan Singh and Bakhtawar Singh were situated adjoining to each other.
According to the prosecution, on 15.7.1991 at about 8 a.m. Gurdish Singh, PW7 and his father, Gurcharan Singh
were irrigating their aforesaid fields and were also mending its ridges and at that time Gurdev Singh, PW8 and
Ajit Singh were also present there. In the meantime, Darshan Singh and Bakhtawar Singh came there from the
side of their fields raising lalkaras and abused the complainant party. Darshan Singh, accused was armed with
D.B.B.L. gun and his father Bakhtawar Singh was carrying a Gandasa and they were saying that they would
teach a lesson to the complainant party for cutting the ridges.

5. According to the further story of the prosecution, Bakhtawar Singh gave a Gandasa blow causing injuries on
the chest of Gurcharan Singh. Gurcharan Singh was also having a Gandasa with him and in order to save
himself he also caused injury on the head of Bakhtawar Singh. Thereafter, Darshan Singh fired two shots from
his licensed gun which hit Gurcharan Singh in the chest and some of the pellets hit Gurdish Singh PW7 on his
left upper arm and Gurdev Singh, PW8 on his left thigh. Gurcharan Singh fell down and died at the spot.
Gurdish Singh and others retraced their steps in order to save themselves. Both the accused in order to save
themselves ran towards their respective houses. Gurdish Singh, PW7 left the dead body of Gurcharan Singh and
proceeded to the police station to lodge a report. Gurdev Singh PW8 also accompanied him. They met Om
Prakash, ASI at about 9 a.m. at Barnala crossing where Gurdish Singh PW7 gave his statement. It was then read
over and explained to him who signed the same admitting the contents thereof to be correct. Om Prakash, ASI
made his endorsement (Ex. N/1) and forwarded the statement to the police station, Rajkot and on the basis of
which the case was registered against both the accused.

6. Om Prakash, ASI accompanied Gurdish Singh and Gurdev Singh to the place of occurrence. He prepared
inquest report in respect of the dead body of Gurcharan Singh and then sent the dead body for post-mortem
examination through Constable Milkha Singh and Head Constable Pargat Singh. Om Prakash, ASI lifted blood
stained earth from the place where dead body of Gurcharan Singh was lying and took the same into possession
after preparing the recovery memo. One gandasa and an empty cartridge of 12 bore were found lying near the
dead body. The gandasa and the empty cartridge were also taken into possession. The Investigating Officer
prepared visual site plan of the place of occurrence with marginal notes. Gurdish Singh and Gurdev Singh's
injury statements were also prepared and sent for medico legal examination.

7. Dr. Mukesh Gupta PW4 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gurcharan Singh
on 15.7.1991 at 4.30 p.m. On the same day at 5.50 p.m. Dr. Gupta also conducted medico legal examination of
Gurdev Singh and found one abrasion on his left thigh. Dr. Gupta found a superficial abrasion on Gurdish Singh
on his elbow. Darshan Singh and Bakhtawar Singh were arrested on 28.7.1991. The factum of the incident has
not been denied by the accused and they claimed right of private defence.

R.S. Sodhi,Advocate vs State Of U.P

the incident which had taken place at Pilibhit on September 12/13, 1991 in which 10 persons were reported to
have been killed in what were described as ,encounters' between the Punjab Militants and the local police. The
news item in connection therewith appeared in The Times of India on the basis whereof this petition was filed.
The issue was raised in the Parliament and teams of MPs belonging to the Congress(1) and BJP also visited the
places of occurrence to make an on-the-spot inquiry. Their reports are on record. We have also perused the
report of the ACJM, Pilibhit in which it is pointed out that the identity of the persons killed in the encounters
was not correctly stated. The investigation in regard to the incident was handed over to an officer of the
Inspector General's level and we are told that the local police officers suspected to be concerned with the
incidents were also transferred to enable the officer to carry on the inquiry unhindered. Subsequently, the State
Government also appointed a one member commission headed by a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court to
inquire into the matter but it appears that in some writ petition filed in the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow
Bench) a stay has been granted restraining the commission from functioning. Be that as it may, the fact remains
that three incidents in which as many as 10 lives (now stated to be eleven) were lost had admittedly taken place
and the need for an independent investigation can hardly be disputed. Since the local police was involved in the
said encounters, a request has been made that an independent agency may be asked to inquire/investigate into
the matter in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to bringing the offenders, if any, to
book. Mr Sodhi contends that the investigation may be directed to be carried out by the Central Bureau of
Investigation having regard to the fact that the accusations are leveled against the local police. He points out that
even the State Government has seen the need for inquiry by an independent commission.

Border Security Force (B.S.F.) vs State Of Meghalaya And Ors.

Baghmara is the Head Quarter of a Revenue Sub-Division in West Garo Hills of Meghalaya State. This town is
on the Bangladesh border and is situate between International border pillars 1143 and 1158. The town is divided
by a P. W.D. Road Along the two sides of the highway there is a bazar. Near the bazar there is Police Station, a
Primary School building and residential quarter of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The inhabitants of the town speak
more than one language and follow different customs and celebrate festivals in their day to day life.

2. On April 14,1987 the Rishi Community of the town were celebrating Charak Puja in the Primary School
building. The establishment apprehended disturbance to peace and tranquillity in the town therefore alerted the
law enforcement agencies. The Sub-divisional Officer who is also an Executive Magistrate was present in the
town. The incharge officer of the Police Station was at the Thana. The Deputy Superintendent of Police arrived
in the town al the behest of Superintendent of police. The three were present at the Police Station when puja was
celebrated at 1600 hours of the day. Few hours after Puja the town experienced serious communal disturbance.
For reasons which will become later clear the further details of the disturbance are not set out in the judgment.
Suffice however to state a senior Sub-Inspector (Sardul Singh) of Border Security Force (BSF) stationed in the
town opened fire on a crowd near a place called MT garage at 2115 hours. The following day on April 15 the
senior Sub-Inspector lodged a first information report at the Police Station which is registered as P. S. Case No.
20/87 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 353, 427 of Indian Penal Code.

State Of Karnataka vs Union Of India & Another

A memorandum alleging corruption, favouritism and nepotism against the Chief

Minister of the State of Karnataka was submitted to the Union Homo Minister by certain
opposition members of the State Assembly. The Chief Minister repelled
the allegations as frivolous and politically motivated. By a notification dated May
18, 1977 the State Government appointed under s.. 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act,
1952, a one man commission presided over by a retired judge of the Karnataka High
Court for inquiring into the allegations specified in the notification. By notification
dated May 23, 1977, the Government of India appointed under s. 3(1) of the Commissions
of Inquiry Act, 1952, a one man commission presided over by a retired judge of the
Supreme Court to enquire into the charges made against the Chief Minister excluding "any
matter covered by the notification of the Government of Karnataka". Thereupon, the State
Government filed in this Court a suit under Art. 131 of the Constitution.