Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-07-1982
Reported in : AIR1982SC1518; 1982(1)SCALE849; (1982)3SCC270; [1983]1SCR498; 1982(14)LC631(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. A provision conferring power enacted to mollify slogans chanting public opinion of speedy justice, if not wisely interpreted may not only prove counter-productive but disastrous. And that is the only raison d'etre for this judgment because in the course of hearing at the stage of granting special leave Mr. D.V. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent straightway conceded that this is such a case in which leave to defend could never have been refused. Unfortunately, however, not a day passes without the routine refusal of leave, tackled as a run of mill case by the High Court in revision with one word judgment 'rejected', has much to our discomfiture impelled us write to this short judgment.2. First the brief narration of facts. Respondent M/s. Prem Deva Niranjun Dava Tayal (Hindu Undivided Family) through Prem Deva Tayal, constituted attorney of Niranjan Deva Tayal (landlord) moved the Controller having jurisdiction by a petition under Section 14(1) proviso (e) [for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-16-1982
Reported in : AIR1982SC1325
1. These writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 354, Sub-section (3) of the CrPC in so far as it provides death sentence as an alternative punishment for the offence of murder. There are several grounds on which the constitutional validity of the death penalty provided in Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 354 Sub-section (3) of the CrPC is assailed before us, but it is not necessary to set them out at this stage, for I propose to deal with them when I examine the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. Suffice it to state for the present that I find, considerable force in some of these grounds and in my view, the constitutional validity of the death penalty provided as an alternative punishment in Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 354 Sub-section (3) of the CrPC cannot be sustained. I am conscious that my learned brethren on the Bench who constitute the majority have t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-02-1982
Reported in : AIR1982SC949; (1982)1CompLJ217(SC); 1982CriLJ819; 1982(1)SCALE38; (1982)1SCC561; [1982]3SCR121
1. My learned Brother A.N. Sen has dealt fully with the various points argued before us. I agree respectfully with his judgment, but desire to add a few words in view of the importance which this matter has acquired by reason of the immense circulation of 'black money' clearly and almost concededly involved in the affairs of the firm which is facing a prosecution.2. These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment dated March 5, 1981 of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Matters Nos. 2829 of 1980 and 37 of 1981. The appeals are, in substance, by the State of West Bengal while the contesting respondents are a firm called 'Sanchaita Investments' and its three partners, Swapan Kumar Guha, Sambhu Prasad Mukherjee and Beharilal Murarka. The two Matters in the Calcutta High Court were in the nature of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution which were filed by the firm and its partners for quashing an investigation commenced against the firm. Allowing t...
Tag this Judgment!