06-03-2020 Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) Vs. Union Of India *Those organisations which have connection with active politics or take…
These civil appeals emanate from the common judgment and order dated 8.8.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (for short, ‘the High Court’) in cross appeals being F.A.O. Nos. 1341 of 2016 (O&M) and 4023 of 2016 (O&M), questioning the correctness of the award dated 4.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 205 of 2014. The former appeal (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No……/2020 @ Diary No. 47693/2018) has been preferred by the insurance company and the latter appeal (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No……./2020 @ Diary No. 17683/2019) by the claimants- respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The parties are referred to as per their status in the former appeal for the sake of convenience.
*1. The appeal is directed against the Order of the High Court setting aside the Order passed by the Magistrate allowing the application filed by the appellant to discharge him.*
The moot question involved in this appeal is: whether the order issued under the signatures of Vice¬Chancellor of the Central University of Kerala (respondent No. 1), dated 30.11.2017 is simplicitor termination or ex-facie stigmatic? The said order reads thus: ¬
Whether an offence prescribing a maximum sentence of more than 7 years imprisonment but not providing any minimum sentence, or providing a minimum sentence of less than 7 years, can be considered to be a ‘heinous offence’ within the meaning of Section 2(33) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?” is the extremely important and interesting issue which arises in this case.
This appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant confirming his conviction under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.
Present appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 20.05.2019 and order on sentence dated 25.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, West District, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 56627/2016 arising out of FIR No. 280/2012 registered at Police Station Khyala, Delhi under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) whereby the appellants were convicted and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
*Leave granted. 2. One of the issues raised in this appeal is whether an appeal against an order of a single judge of a High Court deciding a case related to an Armed Forces personnel pending before the High Court is required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal or should be heard by the High Court.*
*This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 09th October 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 1284 of 1992 acquitting the Respondent (Orig. Accused) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.*