That is plainly relevant to context, but the offence is not directed to the inconvenience which may be caused by the message. In any event, the more one reflects on it, the clearer it becomes that this message did not represent a terrorist threat, or indeed any other form of threat. On these ground the Additional Sessions Judge gave the benefit of doubt to the Upendra Pradhan (appellant herein) and Jema Devi and did not find them guilty under Sections 307 and 302/34 of IPC.
It was posted on “Twitter” for widespread reading, a conversation piece for the defendant’s followers, drawing attention to himself and his predicament. It is common ground that at the relevant time Har Prasad was not recognised as a protected workman, and so his case does not fall under s. Generally the law of limitation which is in vogue on the date of the commencement of the action governs it. In terms he told the Controller that his conduct would bring trouble.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22. The new law of limitation providing a longer period cannot revive a dead remedy. Nor can it suddenly extinguish a vested right of action by providing for a shorter period of limitation. Har Prasad is the President of the Kapra Mill Mazdoor Union, Saharanpur, and it is because of his activities as such President that the appellant does not like him.
Maheshwari, however, wanted us to examine the case of Har Prasad, because, according to him, Har Prasad has been victimised by the employer for 219 his trade union activities. 2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Advocate in Chandigarh Appeal No. The Crown Court was understandably concerned that this message was sent at a time when, as we all know, there is public concern about acts of terrorism and the continuing threat to the security of the country from possible further terrorist attacks.
The grievance addressed by the message is that the airport is closed when the writer wants it to be open. The language and punctuation are inconsistent with the writer intending it to be or it to be taken as a serious warning. 365 of 1998 whereunder he had found the appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on the first score and imposed separate sentence under Section 148 IPC with the default clause stipulating that all the sentences shall be concurrent.
Much more significantly, although it purports to address “you”, meaning those responsible for the airport, it was not sent to anyone at the airport or anyone responsible for airport security, or indeed any form of public security. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that there has been non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, which reads as follows:- “Report of arrest and seizure – Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within fortyeight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.
517 of 2005, whereby it has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore in Sessions Case No. 79(1), Held, that the award was not open to challenge. It is common ground that Har Prasad led the deputation to the Controller of Production both on October 12 and October 14; and the threat held out by him on the earlier occasion is not denied by him. The Tribunal has observed that this workman has not been named by any witness as having taken part in any assault, and it was therefore inclined to take the view that his dismissal amounted to victimisation.
But there are certain exceptions to this principle. It is significant that some of the workmen who assaulted the officers on October 14 had accompanied Har Prasad and were present when he gave the threat to the Controller. Consequently, in a case where the Industrial Tribunal, on a consideration of awards and agreements between employers and employees in comparable concerns, awarded annual leave in excess of what is prescribed by S. 6, stating that the part played by Upendra in catching deceased Pravasini, are not in conformity with each other.
Before concluding that a message is criminal on the basis that it represents a menace, its precise terms, and any inferences to be drawn from its precise terms, need to be examined in the context in and the means by which the message was sent. Be it stated, the High Court has acquitted three of the convicted persons. (4) The quantities shown lawyer in Chandigarh for annulment of marriage Column 5 and Column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in Column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug domestice violence advocate in Chandigarh dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content.
We have carefully considered this workman’s case, and we are satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to accord approval even to his dismissal.