Get the contact of Criminal Revision Advocate in Chandigarh +919876616815

Otherwise the general rule is to make it retrospective. First, we shall deal with the issue of possession. Best Solicitor in Chandigarh 940 other words, the regularisation order, in colouring the appointments of promotees as Assistant Engineers with permanence would run counter to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant cannot be convicted and punished under the NDPS Act when admittedly the theft of contraband substance was prior to coming into force of the NDPS Act, for the FIR was lodged prior to coming into force of the NDPS Act.

[949B-D, 950D- G] State of Mysore and Anr. Thimmiah, [1971] INSC 341; [1972] 2 SCR 799; applied. ” The object of the section is to protect the accused both against over-zealous police officers and untruthful witnesses. Regularisation in the present case, if it meant permanence operative from the 1st of November, 1956 would have the effect of giving seniority to promotees over the direct recruits who, in the absence of such regularisation.

They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to the methodology followed in making the appointments. Learned counsel would also contend that there can be rationalization of structure of punishment, which is an ameliorative provision, for it reduces the punishment and the same can be made applicable to category of accused persons. Learned counsel would submit that offence of possession of contraband substance also commenced prior to coming into force of NDPS Act as the FIR would clearly reveal that the theft was committed on the intervening night of 12th/13th November, 1985, whereas the NDPS Act came into force on 14.

The principal submission of Ms. ” The Judicial Committee in Pakala Narayana Swami v. dated 6th October 1962-the combined effect of which was to promote the said 107 officers as Assistant Engineers with effect from 1st of November 1956 “on a regulaur basis” do not give it the colour of permanence to the appointments of the promotees as Assistant Engineers which cannot therefore be deemed to have been made substantively right from the 1st of November 1956 for two reasons; Firstly, the words “regular” or “regularisation” do not connote permanence.

The regularisation order was made long after the Probation Rules. 1 to 8) and the deceased Vijay Mehta (the original respondent no. He will have a vested right of action but not a vested right of forum. And such a course is not permissible because an act done Property Advocate in Chandigarh the exercise of the executive power of the Government, cannot override rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. If by express words the new forum is made available only to causes of action arising after the creation of the forum, then the retrospective operation of the law is taken away.

On the basis of the said application, the JCC, framed 8 grave and serious charges jointly against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 (original respondent nos. Learned counsel would submit that it is the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused cannot be subject to an offence under a new Act which was not in force on the date of theft and the possession of contraband articles, as a matter of fact, had taken place prior to coming into force of the NDPS Act.

State of Punjab[2], T. Secondly, when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularisation is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 thereof in contravention of the Rules. The relevant portion of that rule is extracted below: No exception is or can be taken on behalf of the promotees to the finding arrived at by the High Court that the appointment of direct recruits to the posts of Assistant Engineers was in order, in view of the judgment of this Court in B.

Learned counsel would submit that the recovery of opium was done on 16. The King- Emperor (3) found another object underlying -the section when they said at p. Nor can it be urged with any plausibility on behalf of direct recruits that the appointment of the promotees as Assistant 947 Engineers prior to the enforcement of the Recruitment Rules lay outside the powers of the Government or was otherwise illegal. 949A] (c) The two Notifications dated 27th February 1962, and order Exhibit (D).

Naraynaswami, [1967] 1 SCR 128 and R. Elaborating the said submission, the learned counsel has contended that the offence of possession of contraband substance was punishable under both the laws but there is a huge difference Rent Advocate in Chandigarh the sentence prescribed. In that regard, she has drawn inspiration from Rattan Lal v. Under Section 9 of the Opium Act, the sentence was extendable to one year whereas under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, the prescribed punishment is minimum 10 years apart from imposition of huge fine.

On the plain language of Sections 110-A and 110-F there should be no difficulty in taking the view that the change in law was merely a change of forum i. State of Mysore(supra). It is a well- established proposition that such a change of law operates retrospectively and the person has to go to the new forum even if his cause of action or right of action accrued prior to the change of forum. What could not be done under the three sets of Rules as they stood, would thus be achieved by an executive fiat.

She has commended us to the decision in Harjit Singh v. 1986 pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellant who was already under arrest in a different matter and under such circumstances, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, but should have been convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act. would rank senior to the former because of the Seniority Rules read with the Probation Rules and may in consequence also confer on the promotees a right of priority in the matter of sharing the quota under the Recruitment Rules.

the Seniority Rules and the Recruitment Rules were promulgated and could not therefore direct something which would do violence to any of the provisions thereof. The real dispute between the direct recruits and the promotees revolves round the quality of the tenure held by the latter immediately prior to the enforcement of the Recruitment Rules and that is so because of the language employed in rule 2 of the Seniority Rules. a change of adjectival or procedural law and not of substantive law firm in Chandigarh for annulment of marriage.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s