“Normally, the question of punishment is linked up with the gravity of the charge, and the penalty that is inflicted is proportionate to the guilt. In most cases this satisfaction can come only if there is such support in extrinsic evidence as to give a reasonable indication that not only what is said about the occurrence in general but also what is said against the particular accused sought to be implicated in the crime is true. “It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Central Government should take under its control the regulation of mines and oil fields and the development of mines to the extent hereinafter provided”.
288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as true and reliable one has to be sa- tisfied that this is really so. On May 21, 1957, the res-pondent offered to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. If there be a case-and there is such infinite variety Advocates in High Court facts and circumstances of the cases coming before the courts that it cannot be dogmatically said that there can never be such a case-where even without such extrinsic support the Judge of facts, after bearing in mind the intrinsic weakness of the evidence, in that two different statements on oath have been made, is satisfied that the evidence is true and can be safely relied upon, the judge will be failing in his duty not to do so.
18 where no objections are filed or where they are filed and are finally disposed of provision is made for the confirmation of the statement and thereupon the statement, as confirmed, is declared to become final and is directed to be published in the village. In our opinion, this argument is well-founded and must be accepted. It is not, therefore, sufficient that other considerations on which a higher punishment is proposed are present in the mind of the competent authority or are supported by the record of service of the civil servant concerned.
Section 19 is the provision referred to in s. of the Allahabad Chandigarh High Court Advocates Court, in Girja Shankar Shukla v. , did not decide in Virendra Singh’s case(1), on the basis of international law or the opinion of the Supreme Lawyers High Court Chandigarh of the United States. In International Law, it has different meanings. 3,30,023 in full satisfaction of the compensation payable to the appellant for the acquisition of its controlled business under the Act, and to set off’ against the said sum an amount of Rs.
560 against sovereign in the ordinary course of diplomatic pressure. He entered upon a review of the evidence and rested his conclusion primarily upon four circumstances: The Sessions Judge did not found his conclusion upon the demeanour of the witnesses, except possibly of Ganesh. 937 that the service of the impugned order of detention on the appellant when he was already in ‘ail custody is outside the: purview of Rule 30(1). Of course even International Law does not recognise,a universal succession.
After elaborately considering the relevant texts on the subject and the case law bearing thereon, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s father was competent to make a gift of ancestral property to the 1st defendant, his brother’s daughter. The learned judges also held that the validity of the gift would depend upon its reasonableness. How can that satisfaction be reached? The term economic concessions” must involve a contract between the State or a public authority on the one hand and a concessionaire on the other and must also involve an investment of capital by the latter for erection of public works or exploitation in the public sector.
The legal basis for sustaining such a gift was formulated by the learned Judges at p. In other words, before one decides to accept the evidence brought in under s. Senior Advocates In High Court Chandigarh Superintendent of Post Offices, Lucknow Division, Lucknow(2), distinguished the case thus: in such a case, even if in the show cause notice a more serious punishment is indicated than what the finding of guilt warrants, he cannot be left to guessing for himself what other possible reasons have impelled the proposed action.
On the facts of the present case no prejudice was caused to the accused and the plea of prejudice was neither raised in the Chandigarh High Court Best Lawyer Court, nor any substantial argument in support of the same was advanced in this Court. 595 “Apart from the suspicion which always attaches to the evidence of an accomplice it would plainly be unsafe, as the judges of the Advocates Chandigarh High Court Court recognized, to rely implicitly on the evidence of a man who had deposed on oath to two different stories.
On the first question the learned counsel took us through the correspondence that passed between the parties and the pleadings before the Tribunal, and contended that the said correspondence, pleadings, and the issues disclosed that there was no dispute between the parties in respect of the capital allocable to the controlled business and, therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in deducting under that head a higher 131 amount than was agreed upon between the parties.
In a case where these factors did not form part of any specific charge and did not otherwise figure in the departmental enquiry, it is necessary that they should be intimated to the civil servant in order to enable him to put up proper defence against the proposed action. ” I do not, therefore, accept the contention that a change of opinion is necessary. ” This, if we may say so, with respect, is the crux of the question.
Where the charge is trivial and prima facie merits only a minor penalty,, a civil servant may not even care to defend himself in the belief that only such punishment as would be commensurate with his guilt will be visited on him. As the answer to this argument mainly depends upon the said correspondence and the pleadings, we shall briefly scrutinise them. 16(2) and appeals from such orders and under s. Such cases are the Mavromma is case, Lighthouses case, Lighthouses in Crete and Samos case (P.
Where a person has made two contradictory statements on oath it is plainly unsafe to rely implicitly on his evidence. At one extreme is the view that it must be “a grant to an individual of rights under municipal law which touch public interest” and at the other end “every economic concession” is held included.