Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
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
Post a Comment

State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978)

By

State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) Case Summary

Facts

  1. The present appeal for the cancellation of bail was raised after the two approvers turned hostile and resiled from their earlier statements.
  2. Earlier the respondent was granted anticipatory bail on charges made by the CBI under S.120B read with S.409, S.435, and S.201 of the IPC. 
  3. It was alleged that the respondent along with other officials and Minister for Information and Broadcasting, V.C. Shukla, had burnt and destroyed the film "Kissa Kursi Ka" in a factory premises of Maruti Ltd, which had to be screened before the Judges of the Supreme Court to decide whether the censor board had rightly refused to grant certificate for exhibition or not.

Issue

  1. Whether the High Court was right in rejecting the application for cancellation of bail.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. The Court said rejection of bail and cancellation of bail is different, it is easier to reject a bail application than to cancel a bail granted.
  2. The fact that the witness has turned hostile needs to show a reasonable involvement of the respondent. A  witness may resile on his own volition out of love and affection being a relative to the accused or out of a sense of gratitude for being an employee.
  3. The prosecution has to prove that the accused had attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses.
  4. The prosecution doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the witnesses had resiled because the accused had won over the witnesses. 
  5. To get a cancellation of the bail order, the prosecution has to show-
    1. The preponderance of probabilities that the accused had attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses.
    2. There exists a reasonable apprehension that the accused will interfere with the course of justice.
  6. In the Gurucharan Singh v. State, 1978: the Court observed that while cancelling a bail order, the Court shall consider that- 
    1. There exists a prima facie case, and
    2. There is a likelihood of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
  7. The prosecution has established a primary facie case that the respondent has tampered with the prosecution witnesses as
    1. Both the witnesses have complained to the CBI that the respondent contacted him.
    2. One of the appellants admitted that he had made a written complaint.
    3. Satpal Singh saw the respondent and one of the witnesses together.
    4. Sarup Singh saw the respondent coming to the factory and heard him assuring Yadav not to worry.

Decisions

  1. The respondent had abused his liberty and tampered with the prosecution witnesses.
  2. Appeal allowed.
  3. The Court set aside the order of the High Court and canceled the bail for one month.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
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
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
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
Read more