text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd Edition) at page 765 while dealing with identification of homicidal and suicidal injuries it has been observed that : "A suicidal firearm wound is usually a contact wound situated on the side of the temple, depending on which hand was used to shoot himself, in the ce... |
The firearm is usually fired at close range Ratio |
A small weapon like a revolver or a pistol is held in the hand, while a rifle or a shot gun is supported on the ground or against the wall Ratio |
Sometimes, the firing is done by pulling a string tied to the trigger by the big toe Ratio |
The skin around the entry wound shows characteristic blackening, scorching and tattooing Ratio |
In such cases the hand used to steady the weapon at the muzzle may be blackened and scorched and may also be stained with squirting of the blood from the injured arteries Ratio |
In homicidal and accidental shooting, the wound may be on any part of the body and the path of the bullet may be in any direction Ratio |
Homicidal shooting by dacoits is not uncommon in India, and they are known to make their own firearms Ratio |
Immediate death following a firearm wound is uncommon and even when vital organs are injured, a person may be capable of doing extraordinary things Ratio |
Sometimes, firearm wounds may look like knife slashes or a bullet hole may resemble a penetrating stab wound, if the bullet strikes the head of shoulder at an angle or when an unstable bullet registers a broadside hit Ratio |
A Fateh describes a rare homicidal gun shot wound of the mouth, where the entry wound was in the tongue and the direction was horizontally backward, while in suicidal wounds the direction is upwards-entrance would be in the palate or posterior pharynx Ratio |
Dr. B.R.Sharma in his Book 'Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials' (Fourth Edition), at Page 1160 too has delineated the circumstances that could indicate suicide and while referring to the site of the injury has observed: "Certain sites are predominantly used by suicides for self-inflicted injuries Rat... |
For example, with firearm, temple,forehead,mouth and chest are the favourite sites Ratio |
With knife throat and wrist are the favourite sites Ratio |
Hesitation injuries are also observed in some suicide cases Ratio |
It is, therefore, clear to us that the story of unknown assailants entering the house and causing Mukhtiar Kaur's murder etcetera has to be ruled out and that the prosecution story that it was the appellant who had first shot Mukhtiar Kaur and then attempted to commit suicide, stands proved Ratio |
We also find that no part of the evidence of the hostile witnesses comes to the aid of the appellant Ratio |
The question now arises as to the sentence that should be imposed on the appellant Ratio |
It would be seen that both the Sessions Court and the High Court were appalled by the allegations and findings of incestuous rape and murder Ratio |
We are however of the opinion, as already noted above, that a case of rape has not been made out Ratio |
In this background the death sentence is not called for Ratio |
We accordingly acquit the appellant of the charge u/s RPC |
376 of the IPC but maintain his conviction for the other offences but commute his death sentence to life RPC |
With this modification, the appeal is dismissed RPC |
Appeal dismissed RPC |
For the sake of convenience we refer to the facts mentioned in Civil Appeal No of 2008 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15729 of 2008) filed by J.Mitra & Co FAC |
Pvt.Ltd FAC |
This matter is a classic illustration of the confusion which has emerged on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of Patents (Amendment) Act,2005 FAC |
Quite often the commencement of an Act is postponed to some specified future date or to such date as the Appropriate Government may,by Notification in the Official Gazette,appoint FAC |
Provision is also at times made for appointment of different dates for coming into force of different parts of the same Act FAC |
This is what has exactly happened in this case resulting into utter confusion with regard to pending FAO No.293/06 filed by respondent No.3 in the High Court u/s.116 of the Indian Patents FAC |
Act,1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act,1999 w.e.f.26.3.99 FAC |
Span Diagnostics Limited,respondent No.3 herein,is a public limited company established in 1972 to indigenously develop and manufacture a comprehensive range of ready-made diagnostic reagents made by clinical pathology laboratories FAC |
On 14.6.2000 J.Mitra & Company Pvt FAC |
Ltd.,3 appellant herein,filed its application for grant of patent FAC |
After scrutiny,the said application stood notified by the Patent Office on 20.11.2004 FAC |
Thus,proceedings commenced before the Controller of Patents in the year 2000 when the appellant herein sought a patent of their device which was opposed by respondent no.3 in the year 2000.By then,the Patents (Amendment) Act,1999 had amended the Patents Act,1970 w.e.f.26.3.99.S.25 of the Patents Act,1970 as amended by ... |
We quote herein below Ss.25 and 116 as it stood in the year 2000 under the Patents (Amendment) Act,1999 which read as under: "S.25.Opposition to grant of patent STA |
1) At any time within four months from the date of advertisement of the acceptance of a complete specification under this Act (or within such further period not exceeding one month in the aggregate as the Controller may allow on application made to him in the prescribed manner before the expiry of the four months afore... |
Explanation -For the purposes of this clause,an invention relating to a process for which a patent is claimed shall be deemed to have been publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim if a product made by that process had already been imported into India before that date except where s... |
But on no other ground STA |
2) Where any such notice of opposition is duly given,the Controller shall notify the applicant and shall give to the applicant and the opponent an opportunity to be heard before deciding the case STA |
The grant of a patent shall not be refused on the ground stated in Cl.(c) of Sub-s.(1) if no patent has been granted in pursuance of the application mentioned in that clause; and for the purpose of any inquiry u/cl.(d) or cl.(e) of that sub-section,no account shall be taken of any secret use STA |
S.116.Appeals STA |
No appeal shall lie from any decision,order or correction made of issued under this Act by the Central Government,or from any act or order of the Controller for the purpose of giving effect to any such decision,order or direction STA |
2) Save as otherwise expressly provided in Sub-section (1),an appeal shall lie to a High Court from any decision,order or direction of the Controller under any of the following provisions,that is to say,Section 15,Section 16,Section17,Section 18,Section STA |
19,Section STA |
20,Section 25,Section STA |
27,Section 28,Section STA |
51,Section 54,Section 57,Section STA |
60,Section 61,Section 63,Sub-s.(3) of Section 69,Section 78,Section 84,Section 86,S.88(3),Section 89,Section 93,S.96 and S.97 STA |
Every appeal under this section shall be in writing and shall be made within three months from the date of the decision,order or direction,as the case may be,of the Controller,or within such further time as the High Court may in accordance with the rules made by it u/s.158 allow STA |
emphasis supplied by us STA |
Suffice it to note that under Patents (Amendment) Act,1999 there was only one right given to a person interested to oppose the grant of patent by filing objections at the pre-grant stage STA |
Under the said Amendment Act,1999,as stated above,vide STA |
S.116 (2 STA |
a right of appeal was available to the aggrieved party against orders passed under S.25.The said appellate remedy was available by way of an appeal to the High Court STA |
In 2002,the Legislature desired an amendment to the law and intended to create an appellate forum to hear appeals against orders passed by the Controller consequently Patents (Amendment FAC |
Act,2002 was promulgated on 25.6.2002.However,it was not brought into force immediately FAC |
It may be noted that in the said Amendment Act,2002,no provision was made pertaining to "post-grant opposition".That provision came to be made only under the Patents (Amendment) Act,2005 which was promulgated on 4.4.2005 w.e.f.1.1.2005 FAC |
Vide S.47 of the Patents (Amendment) Act,2002 entire Chapter XIX stood substituted STA |
Ss.116 and 117A were reworded which read as under: "S.116.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,the Appellate Board established u/s.83 of the Trade Marks Act,1999 shall be the Appellate Board for the purposes of this Act and the said Appellate Board shall exercise the jurisdiction,power and authority conferred on i... |
Provided that the Technical Member of the Appellate Board for the purposes of this Act shall have the qualifications specified in Sub-s.(2 STA |
2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Technical Member for the purposes of this Act unless he STA |
a) has,at least five years,hold the post of Controller under this Act or has exercised the functions of the Controller under this Act for at least five years; or STA |
b) has,for at least ten years,functioned as a Registered Patent Agent and possesses a degree in engineering or technology or a masters degree in science from any University established under law for the time being in force or equivalent; or (c) has,for at least ten years,been an advocate of a proven specialized experie... |
Section 117A.(1 STA |
Save as otherwise expressly provided in Sub-section (2),no appeal shall lie from any decision,order or direction made or issued under this Act by the Central Government,or from any act or order of the Controller for the purpose of giving effect to any such decision,order or direction STA |
An appeal shall lie to the Appellate Board from any decision,order or direction of the Controller or Central Government under Section 15,Section STA |
16,Section 17,Section STA |
18,Section STA |
51,Section 54,Section 57,Section 60,Section 61,Section 63,Section STA |
66,Sub-s.(3) of Section 69,Section STA |
78,Sub-ss.(1) to (5) of Section 84,Section 85,Section 88,Section 91,S.92 and S.94 STA |
Every appeal under this section shall be in prescribed form and shall be verified in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a copy of the decision,order or direction appealed against any by such fees as may be prescribed STA |
Every appeal shall be made within three months from the date of the decision,order or direction,as the case may be,of the Controller or the Central Government or within such further time as the Appellate Board may,in accordance with the rules made by it,allow STA |
The provisions of the said Amendment Act,2002,however,were not simultaneously brought into force FAC |
Suffice it to note that Ss.116 and 117A were not brought into force FAC |
However,S.25 was brought into force vide Notification dated 20.5.2003.Even as on 20.5.2003 vide S.25 only one right to oppose a patent at the pre-grant stage was available and appeal against an order,passed by the earlier,lay before the High Court under the then existing S.116 of the Patents FAC |
Act,1970 for the reason that the amended Ss.116 and 117A were not brought into force FAC |
Without giving effect to the amendments to Ss.116 and 117A suggested by S.47 of the Patents (Amendment FAC |
Act,2002,on 4.4.2005 FAC |
the Legislature enacted the Patents (Amendment) Act,2005.Even here,not all provisions were simultaneously brought into force FAC |
Only certain sections of the Patents (Amendment) Act,2005 were brought into force FAC |
Vide S.23 of the Patents (Amendment STA |
Act,2005,the then existing S.25 was substituted STA |
The substituted S.25 reads as under: "25.Opposition to the patent.(1 STA |
Where an application for a patent has been published but a patent has not been granted,any person may,in writing,represent by way of opposition to the Controller against the grant of patent on the ground- (a) that the applicant for the patent or the person under or through whom he claims,wrongfully obtained the inventi... |
d) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of that claim STA |
Explanation STA |
For the purposes of this clause,an invention relating to a process for which a patent is claimed shall be deemed to have been publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim if a product made by that process had already been imported into India before that date except where such importati... |
At any time after the grant of patent but before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of publication of grant of a patent,any person interested may give notice of opposition to the Controller in the prescribed manner on any of the following grounds,namely: (a) that the patentee or the person under or throug... |
e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious and clearly does not involve any inventive step,having regard to the matter published as mentioned in cl.(b) or having regard to what was used in India before the priority date of the claim; (h) that the patentee has failed to... |
having regard to the knowledge,oral or otherwise,available within any local or indigenous community in India or elsewhere, but on no other ground STA |
3) (a) Where any such notice of opposition is duly given under Sub-section (2),the Controller shall notify the patentee STA |
b STA |
On receipt of such notice of opposition,the Controller shall,by order in writing,constitute a Board to be known as the Opposition Board consisting of such officers as he may determine and refer such notice of opposition along with the documents to that Board for examination and submission of its recommendations to the ... |
c STA |
Every Opposition Board constituted under cl.(b) shall conduct the examination in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed STA |
On receipt of the recommendation of the Opposition Board and after giving the patentee and the opponent an opportunity of being heard,the Controller shall order either to maintain or to amend or to revoke the patent STA |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.