Simranjeet Law Associates Little Known Facts About Chandigarh Advocate.

KingEmperor(1), where it was laid down that where inadmissible evidence had been admitted in a criminal case tried with a jury, the High Court on appeal may, in view of section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act after excluding such inadmissible Advocates in Chandigarh evidence, maintain ‘a conviction, provided that the admissible evidence remaining was, in the opinion of the Court, sufficient clearly to establish the guilt of the accused nIf it were necessary to do so we would prefer to accept the view of Rankin C.

That was the effect of the definition of “dealer” as meaning “any person who carries on the business of selling or buying goods in Bihar”. to the one expressed by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court. Dutt, who appeared in support of the appeal, is, that section 12 of the West Bengal Act XII of 1952 operates as a bar to the trial of this case under the Act. It is argued that under orders of the High Court passed in the appeals, it is the original case, which was commenced before the First Special Tribunal, Calcutta, under Advocates in Chandigarh the Central Ordinance XXIX of 1943 which is being retried by the special court constituted under the West Bengal Act XII of 1952.

A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the time of entrance. The substantial point raised by Mr. These provisions Lawyers in Chandigarh our opinion, constitute an adequate safeguard against any hasty or capricious decision by the “appropriate Government. To appreciate the contentions advanced on either side, it must be mentioned that the Act as passed in 1947 contemplated the imposition of a tax on residents within the State.

noccasioned a failure of justice. It is firstly argued that the Explanation to article 286 (1) (a) on which the validity of the impugned Act depends confers no authority on the State Legislature to impose a tax on sales falling within its purview. The convictions of these accused and the sentences passed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge will therefore be confirmed Appeal by Special Leave granted by the Supreme Court by its Order dated the 14th September, 1953 from the Judgment and Order dated the 5th June, 1953 of the High Court of Judicature for the State of West Bengal at Calcutta in Criminal Revisions Nos.

” The latest pronouncement on this question was the decision of the Privy Council in Abdul Rahim v. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under subsection (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. ” In suitable cases the “appropriate Government” has also been given the power of granting exemptions from the operation of the provisions of this Act.

” Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act provides:- “The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised, that independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there, was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision. 1205 and 1204 of 1952.

nThe result therefore is that so far as the verdict of the jury against accused I and 2 is concerned the same was not vitiated either by the admission of inadmissible evidence or by any misdirection or non-direction. Then came the Constitution, and the Explanation to article 286(1) (a) enacted that sales shall be deemed to have taken place Advocate in Chandigarh that State in which the goods are delivered for consumption, notwithstanding that title to them passed in another State.

They might be natural persons, or they might be juristic persons carrying on business within the State. This case, it is pointed out, was pending before the High Court on the 9th April, 1952, which was the date of the commencement of the West Bengal Ordinance preceding the Act and to such cases the provisions of the Act have been expressly made inapplicable by section 12. This is certainly an extraordinary power which must be sparingly exercised but where the public interest demands it, the Court will 88 686 not shrink from exercising it and imposing punishment even by way of imprisonment, in cases where a mere fine may not be adequate.

The construction which the respondent puts on the Explanation is that it confers on the States proprio vigore, a power to tax sales when the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The business might be carried on in person or through agents. But if the persons who carried on the business of buying and selling did not reside within the State or carry on business there, then the Act did not authorise the imposition of tax on them.

This question as regards the inadmissibility of evidence under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act must therefore be answered against accused 1 Advocate in Chandigarh the event of his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be presumed due to service [Rule 5 read with Rule 14(b)].

Skriv en kommentar