Leave to appeal

According to the spirit and scheme of law, it was duty of the investigating agency to conclude the investigation and thereafter draw conclusion whether in the light of evidence a case for commission of the alleged offences was made out or not

If practice of quashing of FIR was allowed, it would amount to interference in the domain of investigating agency which was an abuse of the process of law

First Information Report which was based on mala fide could be quashed

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Order granting and/or refusing leave was not a judgement that would decide a question of law and it should not be followed necessarily/imperatively.

Leave granting order passed by the Supreme Court, did not lay down a law to be followed, having a binding force, as was envisaged under Art.189 of Constitution.

Respondent objected to petition for leave to appeal on the ground that in the matter, direct appeal under Art.185(2)(d) of the Constitution was to be filed before Supreme Court instead of petition for leave to appeal under Art.185(3) of the Constitution

Respondent also contended that appeal before Supreme Court under Art. 185(2)(d) of the Constitution was barred by limitation

Validity

For determination of filing of appeal or petition, amount or value of subject matter of dispute in court of first instance should not be less than Rs.50,000 and on this account judgment, decree and order appealed against was varied or set aside by court immediately below

Value of subject matter in dispute in the court of first instance had to be looked into and not the value of original suit

Value of subject matter of suit was more than Rs. 50,000 and order passed by High Court for rejection of plaint was varied by Division Bench of High Court

As the subject matter of dispute i.e. agreement to sell and quantum of damages claimed in plaint in the court of first instance exceeded Rs.50,000, judgment of High Court was set aside, therefore, petition for leave to appeal, in view of Art. 185(2)(d) of the Constitution was barred

Only direct appeal under Art. 185(2)(d) of the Constitution was competent

Supreme Court in appropriate cases and in exercise of discretion had ample powers to condone delay caused in filing appeal provided sufficient and reasonable cause within the parameters of law had been shown for condonation of delay

Petitioner did not file any application either for conversion of petition for leave to appeal into appeal or application for condonation of delay, therefore, there was no sufficient cause before Supreme Court for conversion of petition into appeal and to condone delay

Petition was dismissed.

Such leave from Supreme Court cannot be claimed as of right because essentially it is matter of discretion.

Leave to appeal was granted to see whether the cases being identical with the cases of Engineer Narain Das v. Sui Southern Gas Co.. Ltd. 2002 SCMR 82 and The Managing Director, SNGC Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Sheikh PLD 2001 SC 176, the Executive Service Rules would apply to them as well.

Charge against petitioner was that he being employee of P.I.A. in collusion with employees of Cargo Export Shed, unlawfully changed some Customs cleared cartons with fresh cartons of equal number which contained narcotics

Petitioner was found guilty in departmental inquiry and was dismissed from service

Petitioner's departmental appeal as also his appeal before Service Tribunal were dismissed

Charge against petitioner was proved by evidence on record

Petitioner's plea that he having found Custom cleared cartons being replaced by cartons containing narcotics had informed security supervisor, was not proved, but was a proof of his collusion with other accused and rather proved his guilt by taking part in replacement of said cartons and also not reporting matter to Authorities concerned

Petitioner's case being not fit one for further consideration, leave to appeal was refused.

Alternative remedy appearing to be futile exercise in facts of particular case e.g. earlier decision of High Court being a binding precedent for that Court, directing a party to resort to remedy of Letters Patent Appeal would result in delaying decision by Supreme Court

Leave can be granted in such situation.

Does not entitle parties to open out and argue the whole case-Parties are not entitled to contest all findings recorded by the Court below unless it is shown by error apparent on the record that substantial and gave injustice had been done to them.

Pendency of appeal challenging the validity of the iron-reasoned award before the larger Bench of the Supreme Court would not warrant postponement of appeal under Art. 136 of Indian Constitution against the non-reasoned award which is under challenge.

Question whether powers of Sales Tax Officers conferred upon Assistant Collectors, Central Excise, under S. 5(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1951, by Notification, dated 1-7-1981, cannot be exercised by them retrospectively

Point of law being of general importance and likely to affect a large number of cases leave to appeal granted to consider such question.

Observations made by High Court while dismissing petitioners' writ petition bound to prejudice their suit, if they wished to file same in order to establish their title to property

Respondents consenting to having said observation quashed

Petition for leave to appeal converted into appeal and allowed to extent of quashing impugned observations.

Leave refused.

High Court being of opinion that case was covered by Exception 4 to S. 300, P.P.C., altered convictions to S. 304, Part-I, reduced sentences and acquitted some of accused persons

Petitions for leave to appeal both against orders of conviction and acquittal

Supreme Court, on examination of reasons given by High Court, taking view that evidence required re-appraisal

Leave to appeal granted in both petitions- -Bailable warrants of arrest against those already acquitted were ordered to be issued.

High Court on appeal, altered conviction to one under S. 304, Part-I, P.P.C. reduced sentences and acquitted two accused persons

Petitions for leave to appeal both against conviction and acquittals/reduction in sentence

Judgment of High Court found suffering from contradictions and want of proper disposal of various issues arising in case

Matter requiring re-examination de novo and decision afresh after appreciation of evidence on record

Leave to appeal granted in both petitions

Bailable warrants of arrest against those already acquitted, were ordered to be issued.

Motive of offence with complainant party who went twice to house of accused to lodge protest and also opened assault on first occasion

Defence plea that complainant party was aggressor not given due attention by Courts below

Just balance not maintained and petitioners did not receive proper justice

Leave to appeal granted for further examination of case.

Application for restoration of suit although barred by time yet allowed by trial Court on ground that case had been fixed for some other date but it came up by mistake on an earlier date due to some tampering of date on order-sheet

High Court in revision setting aside order of restoration passed by trial Court holding that since application for restoration was barred by Art.163, Limitation Act, 1908, it was liable to be dismissed

Order of High Court maintained and order granting leave to appeal recalled.

Fact that respondent Authority seeking to acquire land in question going to prove that land was not acquired by its predecessor Authority

Petitioner prima facie as owner of land having locus standi to defend its ownership-rights by challenging validity of proceedings for acquisition by respondent Authority

Question deserving to be considered further

Leave to appeal granted.

Leave to appeal-Question, whether extreme penalty should have been imposed on accused in circumstances of case, required further examination

Leave to appeal granted to consider question.

Leave granted.

Leave refused.

Contention that accused absconded and defied arrest for a long time and this circumstance itself was a strong corroboration of ocular testimony and enough to justify conviction of accused

No proclamation made under Ss. 87, 88 & 204, Criminal Procedure Code, and no search was made thus leaving, abscondence of accused in doubt

Leave refused.

Questions, whether Settlement Commissioner (Lands) had no jurisdiction to admit and record additional evidence, and whether sufficient opportunity of rebuttal by arguments or reference to records or by cross-examination was not afforded to respondent side and whether case, instead of being decided by High Court itself by affording further opportunity to respondent side, if necessary, should not have been decided, in so far as merits of claims of parties were concerned, requiring examination

Petition converted into appeal and appeal ordered to be prepared on present record with liberty to parties to file additional evidence.

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Concurrent findings of fact reached by Courts below, held, would call for no interference.

Leave to appeal dismissed with observation that objections to jurisdiction of Special Court on ground of retrospectively and on other legal grounds taken up in High Court and Supreme Court were to be allowed to be raised before Special Court

Such questions alongwith prayer for acquittal to be decided by Special Court first

Pending disposal of such jurisdictional question and question of acquittal, accused ordered to be present before Special Court on each date of hearing and not to be arrested provided they continued to attend.

Questions raised in favour of petition were regarding findings of fact which related to appreciation of evidence and which after hearing were found to be not suffering from any infirmity

Leave to appeal refused.

Contention that no one appeared from general public or from passengers of bus Ps witness; all of witnesses were police officials; there was no certainty about place of recovery; whether petitioner was searched in bus or recovery was affected after he had got down the bus; and that Chemical Examiner's report regarding sample taken out of contraband Charas gave only an opinion but no reasons had been mentioned

Contention raised by petitioner except last one, held, related to appreciation of evidence; there was nothing to suggest that police officials had any motive to falsely implicate petitioner; and report of Chemical Examiner had not been placed on record so as to appreciate whether it lacked any material particulars

Leave to appeal was, therefore, refused in circumstances.

Circumstances in which both male and female accused were found by witnesses and other circumstances appearing in evidence were sufficient to conclude that couple had committed sexual intercourse

No justification, held, was present for interference with concurrent findings of two Courts that accused- persons did indulge in what witnesses had found

Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.

Held: It could not be said that every case of irregularity committed by an employee must be followed by a departmental enquiry under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and action under S. 17(1-A) is not permissible

Such action was permissible even where departmental enquiry was started

Only ground on which such an order could be challenged was mala fide and coram non judice but it was not raised in manner provided in rule 6(2) of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974 which required disclosure

Delay condoned.

Contention that under law in force at relevant time, execution application would lie before Civil Court and for that reason S.15 of Ordinance, 1959 as applied by High Court was not applicable

Nothing, held, would turn on contention as High Court had dealt with matter on merits too

Leave to appeal refused.

Nothing established to show that findings of fact regarding occupation of property rendered against petitioner were against any principle or law

No justification having been made out for interference, leave to appeal dismissed.

Petitioner while posted a; Civil Judge applied for competing for posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge against reserved vacancies for practising lawyers

Petition was not allowed to compete

Leave to appeal

Held, on the date petitioner applied for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge, he was not eligible to do so

Vacancies against which recruitment was sought were reserved for practising lawyers which petitioner was not-Petitioner could not, therefore, while holding post of Civil Judge see recruitment against vacancies reserved for practising lawyers

Leave t~ appeal refused.

Petitioner had not been able to raise any important question of law requiring decision by Supreme Court nor had he been able to show any defect of law in impugned order

Petition dismissed.

Point though duly taken in memorandum of appeal and writ petition but not pressed either before appellate Court or High Court

Concurrent finding on other question of fact against petitioner

No case having be n made out, leave to appeal refused.

Impugned order of High Court passed more than eight years ago and,, there had been no stay of proceedings-Counsel of petitioners unable to state, for want of instructions, as to the fate of remand proceedings

Presumption that proceedings may have ended

Leave to appeal refuse I.

Observations of Court while refusing petition are not to influence the decision of competent authorities exercising jurisdiction in matter

Such observations, in fact, recognize distinction between finding of a Court, reasons for finding and observations made for arriving at finding

Counsel of parties should in any proceedings occasioned by observations made by Supreme Court, keep this distinction in view and project it, and if he does so, no possibility of futile proceedings to his prejudice was likely to exist.

All observations made by Court are to be read and understood consistently with intactness of that order.

Such exercise, held, could not be undertaken in proceedings arising out of Constitutional Jurisdiction-Leave to appeal refused.

[Evidence].

Petitioner contending that leave had already been granted by Supreme Court with regard to question raised in present petition and appeals arising out of said petitions had even been heard and judgment reserved therein

Leave to appeal granted.

Petitioner assailing view taken by High Court that Presiding Officer "if he is otherwise satisfied about identity of voter he may not require production of national identity card and may issue him a ballot-paper" on ground that same was without taking into consideration amended provisions of r. 34(1) of Rules, 1979

Leave granted.

Contention that Courts below had erred in holding that father was of a sound disposing mind when he threw away valuable property for a paltry consideration, thus favouring one son at the expense of rest of his children

Question raised, held, was pre-eminently one -of fact which was answered against petitioners by both Courts below on a consideration of evidence brought on record

Such being case, there was no room for interference by Supreme Court by way of special leave to appeal

Leave to appeal refused.

Petitioner a Lambardar in possession of land granted to him for more than 55 years and spent his entire life in working over it and developing same

Resumption of land found to be justified by High Court

Supreme Court, finding order of High Court to be correct and not requiring interference, dismissed petition for leave to appeal, and observed that petitioner should not be deprived of land with fruits of his labour at this stage, even, though he may not have any right to retain it, strictly in law

Case was a fit case where authorities should consider question of transferring him this area through private negotiations by executing a private treaty with him.

Petition for leave to appeal through jail delayed by 680 days-Delay condoned by Supreme Court in view of long sentence of life imprisonment to enable examination of case on merits.

[ Condonation of delay

Sentence].

Report revealing entire prosecution case lodged without delay-Conviction based on ocular testimony of three trustworthy witnesses High Court taking different view

On basis of certain omissions in their statements under S. 164, Cr. P.C., three witnesses disbelieved and convictions set aside

Leave to appeal against acquittal sought on ground that criteria adopted by High Court, treating every omission in 5.164, Cr.P.C. statement as a contradiction, was not warranted by law or any legal principle and acquittal of accused had resulted in gross miscarriage of justice

Supreme Court, after perusal of record, found it to be a fit case for examination whether acquittal of accused was in disregard of well-settled principles governing ad

Even if there be any point of law in petitioner's favour, Supreme Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in petitioner's favour in circumstances.

Point not pleaded before High Court or any of Courts below, not allowed to be raised for first time before Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Supreme Court refused to hear petition for leave to appeal unless petitioner surrenders.

Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.