Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.17775 of 2007
Sham Singh & Ors.
v.
The Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 04/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent Nos.15 and 16: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate.
(A) Penal Code, S.420--Criminal Procedure Code, S.353--Fraud--Judgment or order of court of law--Alleged to have been obtained by fraud--Can not be said to be a judgment or order in law-- 2008(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2833 relied upon
(B) Advocates Act, 1961, S.35--Misconduct by Advocate--Allegation that two Advocates convicted having defrauded the petitioner in a Civil suit--Matter referred to Bar Council for appropriate action.
----------------
Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2439 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma
Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2009
Sushil Kumar
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 01/09/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder--Death Sentence--“Rarest of rare case”--Murder of wife and two minor children out of poverty--Appellant not a habitual offender--It is not a fit case where it would fall within the category of “rarest of rare case”.
Murder--Death Sentence--Mitigating circumstances--Court must balance the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case, mental condition of the accused, the dispute between the families which ultimately resulted in multiple murders.
(A) Evidence Act, 1872, S.25--Penal Code, 1860, S.302--Murder--Multiple murders--Capital punishment--Death Sentence--Validity of--Murder of wife, son and daughter--Life or death is the question involved in this appeal--Appellant had taken a plea of alibi that on the fateful day, he was not in Jalandhar and had gone to Amritsar--Plea of alibi not found to be fateful--No evidence to doubt the credibility of witnesses--Taking of false plea of alibi is also one of the strong circumstances against the appellant to connect him with the commission of crime--From the evidence available on record found that offence was committed by appellant alone--Appellant had been unemployed for last 7 to 8 months--He used to borrow money from others to meet his daily needs--He himself had consumed ‘sulphas tablets’ to commit suicide even though not medically established--He therefore, was keen that his whole family should be finished and no one should be alive to suffer the pain and agony alone--He cannot be a threat to the society and there are fairly good chances of his reformation as he has learnt sufficient lesson from it--Extreme poverty had driven the appellant to commit the gruesome murder of three of his very near and dear family members - his wife, minor son and daughter--Nothing on record to show that appellant is a habitual offender--It is not a fit case where it would fall within the category of “rarest of rare case” and therefore death sentence as awarded to him by trial Judge and confirmed by High Court deserves to be set aside and quashed. (P.12, 34,41,42 & 44)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, S.25--Penal Code, 1860, S.302--Murder--Death Sentence--”Rarest of rare case”--Murder of wife and two minor children out of poverty--Appellant not a habitual offender--He cannot be a threat to the society and there are fairly good chances of his reformation as he has learnt sufficient lesson from it--He is now about 35 years of age and there appear to be fairly good chances of the appellant getting reformed and becoming a good citizen--It is not a fit case where it would fall within the category of “rarest of rare case” and therefore death sentence as awarded to him by trial Judge and confirmed by High Court deserves to be set aside and quashed--Death sentence quashed--Appellant held guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC on three counts and is awarded life imprisonment for the same.
(C) Evidence Act, 1872, S.25--Penal Code, 1860, S.302--Murder--Death Sentence--Mitigating circumstances--Court must balance the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case, mental condition of the accused, the dispute between the families which ultimately resulted in multiple murders. (P.38)
--------------------
M/s Krishan Kumar Rohtas Kumar v. State of Haryana
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2447 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bhalla
C.W.P. No. 18176 of 2007
M/s Krishan Kumar Rohtas Kumar & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 30/04/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1: Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate .
(A) Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000, R.3 (1) (ii) & (iii)--Rehabilitation of old licensees--Allotment of plots to valid license holders since five years--Classification between licence holders--Cut off date--Challenge to the validity of Clause (iii) of Sub-Rule 3 (1) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000, on the ground of having prescribed arbitrary and superfluous date as 1.1.2000 and also having no rational nexus with the object of the Rules--Object of the Rules is to rehabilitate the 5 years old licensees –Fixing of a cut off date found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14--Cannot be allowed to sustain--Applying the doctrine of severability the word “as on Ist January 2000’, appearing in Clause (iii) of Rule 3 (1) ordered to be severed from the Rule--Substantial part of rule kept intact--Further held that those holding a valid licence for at least five years on the last date for submission of applications would be eligible subject to fulfillment all other conditions.
(B) Constitution of India, Art. 14 & 16--Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000, R.3 (1) (ii) & (iii)--Doctrine of Severability--Applicability of--Rehabilitation of old licensees--Allotment of plots--Condition of valid license holders since five years--Classification between licensees--Cut off date fixed--Rule regarding cut off date found to be arbitrary--Rest of rule not challenged--Doctrine of severability--The doctrine of severability can be safely applied when it is not possible to read down the provision--If the substantive part of legislation can be saved by deleting only offending part thereof, the doctrine of severability can be applied.

----------------