Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 5/1/2009 8:35:00 PM
  Appeal -
  Act -
  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2002 Prem Singh Versus State of (N.C.T.) Delhi Judgement dated 24/4/2009 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.,V.S. SIRPURKAR,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,J. Held..... The primary stand of the appellant was that there was no evidence worth a name and even the so called injured witnesses refused to identify the assailant. The only evidence against the appellant was the alleged recovery of the pistol which was tested by the CFSL. It was found by CFSL that the bullet recovered from the body of the injured matched those test fired through the same pistol. The caliber also was the same. The High Court held that since pistol has been recovered from the appellant, he can be convicted under Section 307 IPC. The High Court found that the appellant who was a non-political leader belonging to a National Political Party was a man of great means and he appeared to have terrorized witnesses. The High Court held but he could not tamper with scientific evidence. The scientific evidence connects his weapon with the crime. That being so the High Court held that the conviction was in order. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusions of the High Court had clearly unsustainable. Merely because the appellant was the owner of the weapon that did not bring out a case under Section 307 IPC so far as he is concerned, and in any event Section 27 has no application. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment. 6. We find that this is a case where even the injured did not identify the appellant to be the person who had fired the short. Merely because he is the owner of the weapon that cannot be a ground to convict him in terms of Section 307 IPC. Further, no question was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding his purported role. The judgment of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds executed to give effect to the order of bail passed by this Court on 15.2.2002 shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed.