Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC250; [1957]1SCR167
S.K. Das, J.1. The appellant is Shri Lalit Mohan Das, a pleader of about 25 years' standing, who ordinarily practiced in the Courts at Anandapur in the district of Mayurbhanj in Orissa. The Munsif of Anandapur, one Shri L. B. N. S. Deo, drew up a proceeding under Sections 13 and 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, against the pleader for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty and submitted a report to the High Court through the District Judge of Mayurbhanj on December 12, 1953. The District Judge forwarded the report, accompanied by his opinion, to the High Court of Orissa on March 9, 1954. The recommendation of the Munsif was that the pleader should be suspended from practice for one year. The reference was heard by the High Court of Orissa, and by its order dated March 15, 1955, the High Court came to the conclusion that the pleader was guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of five years with effect form ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC465; 1957CriLJ581
Govinda Menon, J. 1. Zabar Singh, the appellant, has been convicted of an offence Under Section 302, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, for having participated in the murder of one Sahib Singh and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Special leave having been granted by this Court, his appeal now comes before us.2. On the findings arrived at by the learned Judges of the High Court of Allahabad, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal, and our reasons for that conclusion may be shortly stated as under: --3. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri, along with two others--Lalman and Poti Ram, for having murdered Sahib Singh by shooting him on the 22nd of May, 1953,. at the bus-stand in Kuraoli Town Area while Sahib Singh was alighting from a motor-bus.4. The prosecution case was that on account of factions in that area due to rivalry in politics, the enemies of Sahib Singh procured the appellant and others to commit the murder. The case was based on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC458; 1957(0)BLJR502; 1957CriLJ575; (1958)IILLJ645SC
Govinda Menon, J. 1. Though these three appeals have been filed against the decisions of different courts and are not connected either as regards community of purpose or the identity of the accused they have been heard together, because the points of law raised in them are identical and the arguments of counsel have proceeded on common lines. Hence a common judgment dealing with the legal aspect would be apt in the circumstances. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1954 has been preferred by Om Prakash Gupta against the dismissal of his Revision Petition by the High Court of Allahabad, thereby affirming the appellate decision of the Sessions Judge of Kumaun who in his turn maintained the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 passed on the appellant by the Special 1st Class Magistrate of Nainital on April 30, 1953, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. This appellant was a clerk in the Electric Department of Haldwani Municipal Board and the charge against h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC389; 1957(0)BLJR406; 1957CriLJ567; [1957]1SCR279
Jagannadhadas, J.1. These appeals arise out of an order of discharge passed by the Subordinate Judge-Magistrate of Dhanbad under s. 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on his consenting to the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor from a prosecution pending before him in so far as it was against the appellant Mahesh Desai, one of the accused therein. The prosecution was launched on the first information of one Ram Naresh Pandey as against 28 persons about the commission of the murder of one Nand Kumar Chaubey, a peon of a colliery in Bagdigi, committed in the course of a serious riot on February 20, 1954. This was said to have resulted from differences between two rival labour-unions in connection with a strike. The prosecution as against most of the other persons is under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including s. 302, on the ground of their actual participation in the commission of the murder. But as against the appellant, Mahesh Desai, it is only under s. 302/109 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC363; (1957)59BOMLR401; [1957]1SCR595
S.K. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay dated September 6, 1951, by which the said High Court set aside on appeal the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kolhapur, in Civil Suit No. 23/49 and allowed an amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage, subject to certain conditions, in the circumstances stated below. 2. The appellant before us was defendant No. 1 in the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 are the heirs of the original plaintiff and respondent No. 3 was defendant No. 2 in the action. In 1942 the original plaintiff filed a suit against respondent No. 3 for possession of the suit properties and obtained a decree in ejectment on March 28, 1944. This decree was confirmed in appeal on July 9, 1945. On a further appeal, the then Supreme Court of Kolhapur affirmed the decree on April 2, 1946. In the meantime, the original plaintiff made an application for execution of the decree but was resisted or obstruct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC521; (1957)59BOMLR934; [1957]1SCR721
Sinha, J. 1. By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution and Petition No. 140 of 1955 for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated March 29, 1955, in Appeal No. 63 of 1954 confirming that of a single Judge of that Court dated April 21, 1954, the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Bombay Land Requisition Act (Act XXXIII), 1948,, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act', and the enforceability of the order dated January 27, 1954, made by the Governor of Bombay in pursuance of s. 6(4)(a) of the Act. 2. The petitioner is the widow of one Dharamdas Chellaram, who was a tenant of the premises in question. The said Dharamdas Chellaram died in November 1953, leaving him surviving his widow and a daughter. The petitioner alleged that she had been occupying the premises in question as a member of her husband's family since 1938 and that the tenant aforesaid had at no material date ceased to occupy the premises. She also alleged that one Narottam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC637; 1957CriLJ1014; (1957)35MysLJ(SC)255; [1957]1SCR953
Gajendragadkar, J.1. Harbans Singh, Gurdial Singh and Sarwan Singh were charged in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Ludhiana with having committed an offence of murder punishable under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against them was that they, along with Banta Singh, the approver, had intentionally caused the death of Gurdev Singh by inflicting injuries on his person with kirpan, toki and dang on November 23, 1955, within the limits of the village Sohian, police station Jagraon. The learned trial judge held that the charge framed against all the three accused had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why he convicted them of the offence charged and sentenced each one of them to death. On appeal to the High Court of Punjab, the order of conviction and sentence imposed against Harbans Singh and Sarwan Singh was confirmed whereas the order of conviction and sentence against Gurdial Singh was set aside and he was ordered to be acquitted and discharg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Gajendragadkar, J.1. Harbans Singh, Gurdial Singh and Sarwan Singh were charged in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lodhiana with having committed an offence of murder punishable under Section 302, Penal Code. The case against them was that they, along with Banta Singh, the approver, had intentionally caused the death of Gurdev Singh by infliciting injuries on his person with kirpan, toki and dang on 23rd. November 1955, within the limits of the village Sohian, police station Jagrson.The learned trail Judge held that the charge framed against all the three accused had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That it why he, convicted them of the offence charged and sentenced each one of them to death. On appeal to the High Court of Punjab, the order of conviction and sentence imposed against Harbans Singh and Sarwan Singh was confirmed whereas the order of conviction and sentence against Gurdial Singh was set aside and he was ordered to be acquitted and discharged. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC623; 1957CriLJ1009; (1957)35MysLJ(SC)173
Govinda Menon, J.1. Special leave limited to the question whether the statements taken from the witnesses under s. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the course of investigation in the connected case under the Arms Act, should not have been supplied to the accused for the purpose of his defence in the trial and whether the result of the trial has been materially affected thereby, was granted by this Court on 19th November 1956, in the petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 26th September 1956, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1956. As a result, this appeal now comes up for final disposal.2. On 12th December 1955, Mukhtiar Singh deceased, borrowed a mare from Wazir Singh (P. W. 5) for the purpose of going to Lakhewali Mandi and rode that animal. Late that night, his body was found on the boundary of a field within the area of Nand Garh, evidently having been murdered and the mare was missing. The father of the deceased made a rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC722; 1957CriLJ1034; [1957]1SCR1092
Sinha, J.1. This appeal by special leave and the summons under rule 30 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950, have been heard together and will be disposed of by this Judgment. 2. The appellant was an advocate of the Madras High Court of more than 25 years' standing, and was enrolled as an advocate of the then Federal Court in the year 1939. As will presently appear, he has had a chequered career at the Bar. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by the Chief Justice of that Court, by its judgment and order, dated December 3, 1954, has directed that the appellant's name be removed from the roll of advocates of the Madras High Court, for 'grave professional misconduct'. This Court, having been apprised of the result of the proceedings against the appellant in the High Court, issued notice to him to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice in view of the findings recorded by the High Court. 3. It appears that the appellant was engaged by one K. T. Appa...
Tag this Judgment!