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 v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622

By

State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, 1962

Introduction 

This landmark case of State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, 1962 deals with S.498 of the old CrPC, 1898 and S.439 of the prevailing CrPC, 1973 which provides a wide power to the High Court and Session Court for granting bail.

Facts

The respondent was prosecuted under conspiracy (S.120B IPC) and S.3&5 of the Official Secret Act. The allegation was that the respondent (Jagjit Singh) along with two others had disclosed some official secrets to a foreign agency. After an application for bail by the respondent was rejected by the Session Judge, the respondent went to the High Court under S.498 CrPC, 1898 for bail which had been granted on the considerations:-
  1. The other two respondents were released on bail.
  2. The trial was likely to take a long time.
  3. The respondent was not likely to abscond.
Therefore the appellant came to this Court through an SLP.

Issue 

  1. Whether the High Court was right in granting bail?

Observations

  1. The High Court erred in its decision by granting bail without considering the nature of the offence.
  2. Prima facie, the respondents were committed to the Court of Session for the offence u/s 3 of the Official Secret Act, which is non-bailable.
  3. It is the duty of the Court to consider various points when asked for bail in a Non-bailable offence. 
    1. Nature and Seriousness of the Offence
    2. the character of evidence
    3. Reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused
    4. Effect on witness from his bail as protection of witnesses lies large national interest. 
  4. Under Section 498 CRPC, the power of the High Court is wide, but it cannot grant bail in Non-bailable offences without satisfying the condition given above.
  5. S.3, OSA provides for a punishment of up to fourteen years which shows the gravity and seriousness of the offence.
  6. The case of the respondent is different from the other two persons as the respondent was in touch with a foreign agency, not the other two person

Conclusion 

In this case, the respondent was charged with conspiracy to disclose official secrets to a foreign agency. The Supreme Court observed that the power of HC is wide enough to grant bail under Section 498 but to grant bail in a Non-bailable offence the Court needs to consider various points as the seriousness of the offence, character of evidence etc,.






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