Hoshiar Singh, and Jaipal, s/o. Though, it is a confessional statement which records his admission that he had murdered Sunita, since this part of the statement is not admissible in view of Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act, we are not supposed to take the confessional part into account. Even if there are some contradictions, those are of minor nature and it would be foolhardy to discard the version of these witnesses on miniscule variations which have no bearing at all.

"In the opinion of the Committee many authors are deterred from instituting infringement proceedings because the court in which such proceedings are to be instituted is situated at a considerable distance from the place of their ordinary residence. We would like to point out here that when PW-8 and PW-9 were confronted with their statements recorded earlier under Section 161 Cr. Lodh, Special judge, Alipur. Even the copy of the FIR was sent to the ilaka Magistrate on the same day at 9 pm.

Kamal Singh, reached the spot. The question has arisen in the following circumstances. , regarding the dead body being brought by Suresh Kumar and Jaipal. In this view, the judgment of the High Court is correct. As would be noticed later while discussing the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9, suspicion about the involvement of the appellant was nurtured from the very beginning. I agree that if they had no power their action would be of no avail however well they may have meant.

within four days of the occurrence. We have also held that the new contract was not a conditional one and after its execution the parties should work out their rights only under its terms. It draws a distinction between 'workmen' as such and the managerial or supervisory staff, and confers benefit on the former only. The Act is primarily meant for regulating the relations of employers and workmen-past, present and future. Within few hours thereafter and without loss of any time, the complainant Jaibir (PW-12) lodged the report with the police at about 7.

He was arrested on 07. by the counsel who appeared for Balraj, what is found is that name of Balraj was missing which has surfaced later. 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant pleaded the bar of S. 1999, he made the disclosure statement (Ex. The counsel for the appellant submits that ante mortem injuries are in conflict with ocular account. In this connection, we may advert again to the prosecution case according to which the deceased was repeatedly crushed under the wheels of the tractor.

However, as far as appellant is concerned, there are no contradictions by the witnesses on the aforesaid aspects. I turn next to the powers of Government. -This appeal by special leave raises a question of some nicety and of considerable importance in the matter of industrial relations in this country. Pursuant to the aforesaid disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered two earrings and dhol made of gold as well as sickle in the presence of Subhash (PW-10) and Mahavir (PW-13).

15 pm on the same day. After arranging vehicle, they took the deceased to the hospital, where he was declared dead. He also stated that he threw the sickle in the field of Barseem and he could get these things recovered after pointing out the same. 4(a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, gives them that power. After the occurrence, many persons, including Suresh Kumar, s/o.

He, however, also stated that he removed the golden earrings and one dhol and after wrapping the same into a wax paper, he concealed underneath the earth after digging in a pit in the onion fields (Kayari) which was taken by him on share basis. On the very next day, i. We have held that the three contracts were settled and the third settlement contract was in substitution of the three contracts; and, after its execution, all the earlier contracts were extinguished and the arbitration clause contained therein also perished along with them.

The incident in this case took place on 03. This appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Beniwal (PW-3), who attended the deceased at the hospital, declared him dead and sent a ruqqa (Exhibit PE) to the Station House Officer, Dadri Police Station at 9. PJ) before Shri Shivdan Singh, the investigating officer lawyers in Supreme Cour of Indiat presence of Head Constable Krishan Kumar and Constable Mahender Singh. The Committee feels that this impediment should be removed and the new sub-clause (2) accordingly provides that infringement proceedings may be instituted in the District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person instituting the proceedings ordinarily resides, carries on business etc.

403 Code of Criminal Procedure on account of his acquittal by Mr. The question is the true scope and effect of the definition clause in s. The Act was amended and another complaint was then filed against the appellant and Bose before Mr. It is for this reason insofar as Balraj is concerned, he was given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial court itself.