Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1955]1SCR224
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. This is an appeal under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India from the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta dated the 21st of March, 1952, whereby the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced the sentence passed upon him by the Additional Sessions Judge of Burdwan.2. The appeal concerns one of a series of cases known generally as 'The Burdwan Test Relief Fraud Cases' which had their origin in the test relief operations held in the District of Burdwan in 1943, during the Bengal famine of that year. The acute scarcity and the prevailing distress of the famine-stricken people in the district called for immediate relief and test relief operations were undertake by the District Board in pursuance of the advice of the District Magistrate. The Government of Bengal sanctioned four lakhs of rupees as advance to the District Board for such test relief operations. The District Board, however, ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC513; 1954(2)BLJR436; (1954)IIMLJ379(SC); [1955]1SCR509
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. This appeal preferred under article 136 of the Constitution against the order, dated May 4, 1951, of the Election Tribunal, Allahabad, setting aside the election of Sri Vashist Narain Sharma to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, raises two questions for consideration. The first question is whether the nomination of one of the rival candidates, Dudh Nath, was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and the second, whether the result of the election was thereby materially affected. 2. Eight candidates filed nominations to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Ghazipur (South East) Constituency No. 345, three withdrew their candidature and the contest was confined to the remaining five. The votes secured by these candidates were as follows :- 1. Vashist Narain Sharma 128682. Vireshwar Nath Rai 109963. Mahadeo 39504. Dudh Nath 19835. Gulab Chand 17683. They were arrayed in the election petition as respondents Nos. 1 to 5 respectively. The first respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC505; [1955]1SCR467
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal, which has come before us, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta, under article 133(1) of the Constitution, is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of that Court dated the 29th March, 1950, affirming, on appeal, those of the Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore, passed in Title Suit No. 70 of 1941.2. The appellants before us are the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant No. 3 in the suit, which was commenced by the plaintiffs respondents to recover possession of the property in dispute, on establishment of their title, as reversionary heirs of one Haripada Patra, after the death of his mother Rashmoni, who got the property in the restricted rights of a Hindu female heir on Haripada's death. To appreciate the contentions that have been raised by the parties to this appeal it would be necessary to narrate the material facts in chronological order.3. The property in suit which is premises No. 6 Dwar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC653
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court dated the 2nd February 1953, by which the learned Judges reversed, on appeal, an order dated the 10th October 1952 made by the Sub-Judge, Tumkur, sitting as Election Commissioner, in Election Mis. Case No. 1 of 1952-53.2. The material facts lie within a brief compass and are for the most part uncontroverted. There was an election held for the Town Municipal Councillorship of the Gubbi town, in the State of Mysore, in March 1952, and the appellant and the respondent before us were the two rival candidates for the seat. At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, objection was taken by the respondent to the nomination of the appellant as a candidate, on the ground, that he was holding an office of profit under the Government at that time, as the Chairman of Gubbi Taluk Development Committee, and was hence disqualified for being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC560; 1954(2)BLJR481; (1954)56BOMLR1221; 1954CriLJ1417; [1955]1SCR501
Bose, J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of Constitution and raises the same question on the merits as in the connected summons case in which we have just delivered judgment. The facts will be found there. In the present matter it is enough to say that no question arises about the breach of a fundamental right. But as a matter touching the jurisdiction of the Bar Council Tribunal and that of the Bombay High Court was argued, we will deal with it shortly. 2. Mr. G's first objection is that the proceedings before the Tribunal were ultra vires because there was no proper order of appointment. At a very early stage he applied to the Registrar and also to the Prothonotary for a copy of the order of the Chief Justice constituting the Tribunal. He was told by the Prothonotary that the order was oral. 3. Mr. 'G' put in two written statements before the Tribunal and did not challenge this statement of fact in either. He contented himself with saying that the order was not 'judicial' and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC439
Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of PEPSU confirming the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302, Penal Code and the sentence of transportation for life passed upon him by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhatinda.2. The deceased Bachittar Singh it appears had made overtures to the sister-in-law of the Appellant and the Appellant had asked his cousin Sunder Singh to warn the deceased not to do so in the future. Sunder Singh was not on speaking terms with the deceased and he had replied that he would not do so. Three or four days after this event the marriage of the daughter of one Kartar Singh was being celebrated in the village and the marriage party was sitting in the bethak of Hakim Dewan Chand. The marriage party was broadcasting recorded music and Sunder Singh was sitting on the platform hearing the music. One Pearey Singh came along there from his outer house with a bucket containing milk and was proceeding towards his res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC41; (1955)57BOMLR595; [1955]1SCR777
Bose, J.1. This judgment will govern Civil Appeals Nos. 146 and 147 of 1952 as well. We will first deal with the questions that are common to them all. They arise out of three petitions made in the Bombay High Court for writs of mandamus under article 266 of the Constitution. The writs have been granted and the State of Bombay appeals. 2. The facts are these. The Governor of Bombay, acting through the Assistant Controller of Accommodation, issued orders under section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, in Civil Appeals Nos. 145 and 146 of 1952 and under section 5(1) in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1952, requisitioning the premises of the three respondents. The question is whether these orders are ultra vires. They are attacked on a number of grounds the first of which goes to the root of the matter. It is contended that these two sections are ultra vires articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution. 3. The respondents are either the owners or the tenants of the premises req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC36; 1955CriLJ152; [1955]1SCR697
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. This appeal, by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Simla, raises a novel and interesting question of law, viz., whether a person accused of an offence under the Indian Penal Code and committed in a district which after the partition of India became Pakistan, could be tried for that offence by a Criminal Court in India after his migration to that country, and thereafter acquiring the status of a citizen. 2. The material facts relevant to this enquiry are these : 3. The respondent, Ram Narain, acting on behalf of his firm Ram Narain Joginder Nath, carrying on business at Mailsi in Multan District, was allowed a cash credit limit of rupees three lakhs by the Mailsi branch of the Central Bank of India Ltd. (the appellant) on the 23rd December, 1946, shortly before the partition of British India. The account was secured against stocks which were to remain in possession of the borrowers as trustees on behalf of the bank. On 15th August, 1947, when British Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC19; 1955(0)BLJR112; 1955CriLJ133; [1955]1SCR757
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of contempt proceedings taken against two very senior members of the Nagpur Bar and one of their clients. Shri Shareef, one of the appellants, at one time was Minister for Law and Justice in the State. Dr. Kathalay, the second appellant, is a Doctor of Laws and an author of legal works. The matter which resulted in the issue of the show cause notices for contempt took a protracted course and has to a certain extent resulted in embittered feelings. What happened was this : 2. Shri Zikar who was charged along with the two appellants for contempt made an application under article 226(1) of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental right, alleging that he was a citizen of Bharat, and that the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the police were taking wrongful action against him and treating him as a national of Pakistan which he never was. He prayed for an interim order of prohibition against the State from deportin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC104; (1955)57BOMLR600; 1955CriLJ196; [1955]1SCR903
Bhagwati, J. 1. Anokhelal Ranjit Singh, original accused I and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1954, Harnarain Nanakchand, original accused 2 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1954 and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma, original accused 4 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1954, along with one Rubidas Radhelal, original accused 3 since deceased and one Bankelal Devisingh still absconding were charged under section 397 read with section 395 of the Indian Penal Code with having committed dictate and used deadly weapons at the time of committing the same and were also charged under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code with having committed the murder of Lawrence Quadros at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction while committing the said dacoity. The trial was held before the Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay with the aid of a special jury. The jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilty against each of the accused and the learned Sessions Judge co...
Tag this Judgment!