Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court Upholds Convictions, Reduces Sentence

        RAM LAL Versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

        RAM LAL Versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Legitimacy of assigning clerical duties to a Peon.
        2. Validity of the confessional statements.
        3. Conviction under Sections 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
        4. Conviction under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC.
        5. Sentencing and reduction of imprisonment.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Legitimacy of assigning clerical duties to a Peon:
        The appellant was employed as a Peon but was assigned clerical duties due to a shortage of staff. The defense argued that no clerical job can be assigned to a Peon as per bank rules, citing testimonies from bank officers (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-10). The court acknowledged that there was no office order authorizing the appellant to perform clerical duties. However, it was found that the appellant was indeed performing these duties, as confirmed by A.K. Gupta (PW-10). The court held that the absence of a formal office order did not absolve the appellant of responsibility for his actions.

        2. Validity of the confessional statements:
        The appellant contended that his confessional statements were not voluntary and were made under pressure from higher officials (PWs 2 and 3). The court examined the admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, referencing several precedents. It was emphasized that extra-judicial confessions must be voluntary and inspire confidence. The court found that the appellant's confessions (Ex.-PW-2/A and Ex.-PW-3/A) were made voluntarily in the presence of senior officers and were corroborated by other evidence. The court dismissed the appellant's contention that the confessions were made under inducement or threat.

        3. Conviction under Sections 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
        The appellant was convicted under these sections for misappropriating money entrusted to him as a public servant. The trial court found that the appellant, while performing clerical duties, pocketed money meant for deposit in Saving Bank accounts and made false credit entries. The High Court affirmed this conviction, and the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

        4. Conviction under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC:
        The appellant was also convicted under Section 409 IPC for criminal breach of trust and under Section 477-A IPC for falsification of accounts. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 409 IPC and two years under Section 477-A IPC, with all sentences to run concurrently. The appellant was acquitted of charges under Sections 468 and 471 IPC due to lack of precise evidence from the opinion expert. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC but reduced the sentence under Section 409 IPC to three years, considering the passage of time and circumstances.

        5. Sentencing and reduction of imprisonment:
        The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's conviction under Section 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 409 and 477-A IPC. However, considering the occurrence was from 1992-94, the court reduced the sentence of imprisonment under Section 409 IPC from five years to three years. The appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence, failing which he would be taken into custody.

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, confirming the convictions under the relevant sections but reducing the sentence under Section 409 IPC to three years. The appellant was ordered to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found