Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary Introduction In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses. The Government o
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the HC of Telangana which confirmed the findings of a Special Court that convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
PW- Prosecution Witness
PW 1- Complainant 1- Supervisor of the Society.
PW 2- Complainant 2- MD of the Society
PW 3- Madhusudan - Godown in charge of the Society.
PW 4- ACTO (Assistant Commercial Tax Officer)
Appellant- CTO (Commercial Tax Officer)
Facts of the Case
The appellant was working as a Commercial Tax Officer. It was alleged by PW 1, Sharma (working as a supervisor in Farmers' Service Co-operative Society) that the appellant was demanding a bribe of Rs 3000 to issue an assessment order. The supervisor of the said society and its MD made a written complaint to ACB. A trap was laid to catch the appellant red-handed by giving tainted currency notes. But it was alleged that the appellant instead of taking the tainted notes directly in her hand, she opened a diary and asked to put that currency in between the diary. Therefore when the trap party entered the office of the appellant, they found the same currency note in her diary. The Special court found that the demand for a bribe and its acceptance was proved and this finding was also affirmed by the HC. Therefore this appeal was raised.
Contentions of Appellant
Demand not proved
Recovery not proved
In the Sodium Carbonate test, her finger did not turn red
ACTO had a grudge against the appellant.
Unless the demand and acceptance are established presumptions under S-20. PCA would not apply.
The existence of a washroom in the chamber was accepted by D.S.P, ACB.
Notice issued by the appellant informing the society that they are not liable to pay.
Respondent's Contentions
No reason for PW 1 to make a false allegation
Tainted notes were found in the diary.
the appellant didn't issue a final assessment order, though notice may have been served.
Under Article-136, no interference is called for.
Issue
Whether the earlier findings of the HC and the Special Court were right.
Ratio Decidendi
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is sine-qua-non to establish the offence under S.7, PCA.
The prosecution's case about the demand appears to be highly doubtful because the final assessment order was only a procedural formality.
PW 1 is the only witness to the alleged demand and acceptance.
Acc. to PW 4, the demand was not reiterated at the time of the trap, in fact, he himself told her that he brought the money.
PW 2 had no personal Knowledge about the demand.
Though the appellant asked PW 3 whether he had brought the demanded amount, PW 3 didn't state that the appellant demanded the amount for granting any favour to the said society.
PW 4 admitted that the appellant had served a memo to him alleging that he was careless in performing his duties.
Decision:
The demand for illegal gratification is not proved.
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary Introduction This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway. For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme, and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme, Earlier the sharehol
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Comments
Post a Comment