Ram Shankar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

.....delegate to apply a formula which was not contemplated by the authority itself. it an executive authority in absence of any statutory provision cannot apply a decision with retrospective effect, the same would be ultra vires. indian contract act,1872[c.a.no.9/1872] -- section 29: [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj] vagueness price essential element of binding contract held, it is well settled that a definite price is an essential element of a binding agreement. although a definite price need not be stated in the contract, but assertion thereof either expressly or impliedly is imperative indian contract act,1872[c.a.no.9/1872] -- section 60: [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj] novation of contract held, it is well known principle of law that a person would be bound by the terms of the contract subject of course to its validity. a contract in certain situations may also be avoided. with a view to make novation of a contract binding and in particular some of the terms and conditions there of, the offeree must be made known thereabout. a party to the contract cannot at a later stage, while the contract was being performed, impose terms and conditions which were not part of the offer and which were based upon unilateral issuance of office orders, but not communicated to the other party to the contract and which were not even the subject matter of a public notice. terms and conditions of the contract can indisputably be altered or modified. they cannot, however, be done unilaterally unless there exists any provision either in contract itself or in law. novation of contract must precede the contract making process. the parties thereto must be ad idem so far as the terms and conditions are concerned. if a contracting party, intended to alter or modify the terms of contract, it was obligatory on its part to bring the same to the notice of the allocate. having not done so, it, relying on or on the basis of the purported office orders which is not..........informed the station master, on receiving a telephonic call from the station master the policemen arrived in a lorry and disarmed, arrested and took away ram shanker-appellant. 3. the plea of the appellant at the trial was that liquor was administered to him against his will by ram gopal and haricharan of damon as a result of which he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act that he might have committed, in short, the defence was under section 65, i.p.c. the appellant did not examine ram gopal and haricharan and otherwise failed to establish his defence.4. technically the offence committed by the appellant was one under section 397, i.p.c. as he had used a deadly weapon in committing robbery and the courts had no option but to impose the minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment. but there were several mitigating circumstances in the case. there was nothing on the record that the appellant was a person of bad antecedents. he was a primary school teacher. the amount alleged to have been robbed was a trivial amount of rs. 3.85. he did not cause physical hurt to anybody. he did not make any attempt to rob the cash in the booking office, where he quietly remained standing for a sufficient time. he did not resist his arrest. according to the station master, rishi kumar khare (p.w. 5), constable shaikh karim had informed him that the appellant had given his name as shanker s/o nand lal of damoh. thus, the appellant made no attempt to conceal his real identity. we, therefore, think that this is an appropriate case where the executing government may in exercise of its power of clemency under section 432 of the cr pc, 1973, remit or reduce the sentence of the appellant. with this observation, we dismiss this appeal. the appellant is granted three weeks' time to surrender, to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence inflicted on him.