Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC468
Bose, J.1. Two brothers Hate Singh and Bheru Singh were convicted of the murder of one Shiv Singh and sentenced to death. The Madhya Bharat High Court confirmed the convictions and upheld the sentences. Both appealed to this Court. Bheru Singh's appeal was dismissed 'in limine' because he admitted the shooting from the start and took all the blame on himself. He adhered to these admissions throughout the trial and also in the appeal to the High Court. There is also the testimony of two eye-witnesses against him which in view of his admissions cannot but be believed so far as he is concerned. But there appeared to be an element of doubt in the other case, so Hate Singh's appeal was admitted for hearing and that is the appeal we are now dealing with. Hate Singh has denied complicity in the crime all through.2. Put very shortly the prosecution case is that there was a sudden quarrel between the deceased Shiv Singh and the accused Bheru Singh because Shiv Singh hit Hate Singh's young broth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC467
Fazl Ali, J.1. The only question to be decided in this appeal relates to the sentence imposed on the appellant, and it arises in the following manner. The appellant was tried by a Magistrate of Jabalpur on the charge of having committed an offence under Section 377, Penal Code and was found guilty. While sentencing the appellant, the Magistrate observed as follows:'The accused is a first offender of 18 years of age. A deterrent sentence would be highly inappropriate in this case. I accordingly order that the accused shall receive 10 stripes under Section 4(b), Whipping Act in lieu of the sentence provided under Section 377, I. P. C.' The sentence imposed on the appellant was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Jabalpur, but, in revision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court pointed out that the sentence of whipping was illegal since the appellant was not a juvenile offender and the only other relevant provision of the Whipping Act was Section 4(b) which was not applicable to this case. Section 4(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC75; 1952CriLJ510; [1952]1SCR284
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of West Bengal from a judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta quashing the conviction of the respondent by the Special Court established under section 3 of the West Bengal Special Courts Ordinance, 1949, (Ordinance No. 3 of 1949) which was replaced in March, 1950, by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, (West Bengal Act X of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The respondent and 49 other persons were charged with various offences alleged to have been committed by them in the course of their raid as an armed gang on a certain factory known as the Jessop Factory at Dum Dum, and they were convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment by the Special Court to which the case was sent for trial by the Governor of West Bengal by a notification dated 26th January, 1950, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 (1) of the Act. Thereupon the respondent applied to the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC149; 1952CriLJ832; (1952)IMLJ736(SC); [1952]1SCR425
Mukhereja, J.1. This appeal has come up before us on special leave granted by this court on May 23, 1950, and it is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated April 10, 1950, by which the learned Judges found the appellant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to serve simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The appellant is the publisher and managing editor of a Telgu Weekly known as 'Praja Rajyam' which is edited and published at Nellore in the State of Madras. In the issue of the said paper dated 10th February, 1949, an article appeared under the caption 'Is the Sub- Magistrate, Kovvur, corrupt? ' The purport of the article was that Surya Narayan Murthi, the stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kovvur, was known to the people of the locality to be a bribe taker and to be in the habit of harassing litigants in various ways. He was said to have a broker, through whom negotiations in connection with these corrupt practices were carried on Several sp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC196; 1952CriLJ966; (1952)IIMLJ135(SC); [1952]1SCR597
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras adjudging section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Act No. XIV of 1908) as amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) as unconstitutional and void, and quashing Government Order No. 1517, Public (General) Department, dated 10th March, 1950, whereby the State Government declared a Society called the People's Education Society an unlawful association. 2. The respondent, who was the general secretary of the Society, which was registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860, applied to the High Court on 10th April 1950, under article 226 of the Constitution complaining that the impugned Act and he Order dated 10th March, 1950, purporting to be issued thereunder infringed the fundamental right conferred on him by article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution to form associations or unions and seeking appr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1952]1SCR889
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. These appeals and petitions which fall into three groups raise the issue of the constitutional validity of three State enactments called The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950), The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. I of 1951), and The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. I of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Act, the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Uttar Pradesh Act, respectively). 2. The common aim of these statutes, generally speaking, is to abolish zamindaries and other proprietary estates and tenures in the three States aforesaid, so as to eliminate the intermediaries by means of compulsory acquisition of their rights and interests, and to bring the raiyats and other occupants of lands in those areas into direct relation with the Government. The constitutionality of these Acts having been challenged in the respective State High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC245; (1952)IIMLJ255(SC); [1952]1SCR849
Mukherjea, J.1. The sanctity which orthodox Hindu thought and feeling attribute to visiting of sacred places is nowhere better illustrated than in the vast concourse of pilgrims, who are attracted every year, from all parts of India, to the mountain shrines at Badrinath situated, high up in the Himalayas, in the District of Garhwal. The place to which the appellation of 'Puri' is given, contains a number of temple but the principal temple is the one where the idol Badrinath along with some other subsidiary idols is installed. This main temple is divided into three portions or apartments, and to the innermost portion which is considered to be the holiest and where the deities are located no pilgrim is allowed access. The pilgrims gather in the middle room; they have 'darshan' or look at the deity from this place and there also they make their offerings and perform other rites of individual worship. The last room is an outer apartment which is used as a sort of waiting place for the wors...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC331; [1952]1SCR825
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab at Simla reversing the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Kangra in a suit instituted by the appellant for a declaration that he was the sole lawful heir of one Musammat Ram Piari, whom he alleged to be his wife, and as such was entitled to the properties left by her, and for possession of those properties. The suit was instituted against 2 persons, namely, Parvin Kumari, who was alleged to be the daughter of the plaintiff by Ram Piari, and Shrimati Raj Kumari, who were respectively impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint was that he was married to Ram Piari, the daughter of an employee of Raj Kumari (defendant No. 2) about 22 years before the institution of the suit, that after marriage she lived with him at Hoshiarpur and gave birth to a daughter, Parvin Kumari (defendant No. 1), on the 4th March, 1929, and that Ram Piari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC343; 1953CriLJ129; [1952]1SCR1091
Mahajan, J. 1. This is a consolidated appeal by special leave from the two orders of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur passed on the 9th March, 1950, in Criminal Revisions Nos. 152 and 153 of 1949. 2. On a complaint filed by the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Nagpur, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1951 (H. G. Nargundkar, Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh), and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1951 (R. S. Patel) were tried in the court of Shri B. K. Chaudhri, Special Magistrate, Nagpur, for the offence of conspiracy to secure the contract of Seoni Distillery from April, 1947, to March 1951 by forging the tender, Exhibit P-3A, and for commission of the offences of forgery of the tender (Exhibit P-3A) and of another document, Exhibit P-24. The learned Special Magistrate convicted both the appellants on all the three charges. He sentenced R. S. Patel to rigorous imprisonment for one year under each charge and to pay fines of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC406
Mahajan, J.1. The above batch of appeals against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 14-8-1951 is before us by special leave.2. The appellants preferred a number of petitions to the High Court in what is known as the Hanuman Bank Conspiracy Case to quash no less than 67 charges framed against them by the Special Magistrate, Tanjore. The High Court quashed all the charges but directed a retrial of the appellants (who were some of the accused) on the charge of conspiracy between October 1946 and April 1947 to falsify bank accounts and to bring into existence a false balance-sheet. It also decided to withdraw the case under Section 526 (1) (e), Criminal P. C. to itself and added a direction under Section 526 (2) that the case be tried by warrant procedure but without a jury. A strong recommendation was made to the Govt. for the appointment of a Director of Prosecutions on a fixed salary not much below that of a High Court Judge for handling this and other complicated...
Tag this Judgment!