Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1959Raj21
D.S. Dave, J.1. Both the appeals noted above arise out of the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 21-1-58 and therefore they are disposed of together.2. Appellants Bismillah Khan and Mst. Azizan have both been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge Udaipur under Section 366 I. P. C. but while Bismillah Khan has been sentenced to 5 years' R I and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, Mst. Azizan has been sentenced only to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-.3. The incident giving rise to this case took place in a locality called Tekri in Udaipur on the 18th of August, 1954.4. The prosecution case against the appellants is as follows :One Mst. Ram Pyari who was a widow of one Bahadur Singh was living at Tekri. It is said that her deceased husband was a Nepali who had several years back come to Mewar, joined the military service at Udaipur. Even after his death Mst. Ram Pyari who was also a Nepali woman continued to live there. She had two daughters, Kamla aged about 16 or 17 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal142,1960CriLJ329
ORDERN.K. Sen, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of acquittal passed by Shri P. N. Lahiri, Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas, in a Sessions trial where the jury unanimously found the three opposite parties not guilty of the respective charges upon which they were tried. The learned Judge held that the verdict which he accepted was not against the weight of evidence. He did not, however, express himself as to whether he agreed with the verdict. 2. Opposite party No. 1 Shibraj Singh was tried on charges under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge under Section 302 was for shooting Sk. Monjur to death and the other charge under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was for causing grievous hurt to a boy named Ranjit Pal, who is prosecution witness No. 24 in the case. The two other opposite parties were charged for abetment of the aforesaid offences. 3. The prosecution case which may be shortly narrated was as follows: There is a manufacturing concern on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
G. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Nowgong. The appellant Biresh Misra (hereinafter called the appellant), a voter of Silchar West Constituency stood as a candidate for the election for the Assam Legislative Assembly from Lumding constituency as the nominee of the Communist Party of India. The respondent No. 1--Ram Nath Sarma (hereinafter called the respondent) was a candidate nominated by the Indian National Congress to contest for the aforesaid constituency. The respondent is also the Chairman of the Local Board of Nowgong and the other respondents were also the candidates for the said constituency. Abdul Mosabir contested as an independent candidate and the other respondents represented various other parties. Lumding constituency is also included as a part in the Loksabha constituency of the district of Nowgong and Sri Liladhar Kataki was the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1960Ori161; 1960CriLJ1349
Narasimham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa against an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judgeof Mayurbhanj in a case under Sections 302, 324 and 326 I.P.C. instituted against the respondent, a Nepali named Ram Bahadur Thapa. 2. In village Rasgovindpur in Balasore district there is an abandoned aerodrome in which was collected a large quantity of valuable aeroscrap. The Garrison Engineer of the Defence Department kept the aeroscrap in charge of two choukidars mimed Dibakar (P.W. 22) and Govind (P.W. 23) with a view to prevent pilferage by unauthorised persons. One Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee (P.W. 29) of the firm of Chatterji Brothers, Calcutta, came to Rasgovindpur accompanied by a Nepali servant named Ram Bahadur Thapa (respondent) sometime in April 1958 for the purpose of purchasing the said aeroscrap. He and his Nepali servant stayed in the house of one Krishna Chandra Patro (P.W. 26) who was keeping a tea stall in village Rasgovindpur. All round the aerodrome ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1960]39ITR617(All)
BHARGAVA, J. - By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, after incorporation of the amendment which was sought by the petitioner, the main relief sought is the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the assessment order dated February 23, 1959, passed by the opposite party, the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Dehra Dun. This order of assessment relates to the assessment year 1950-51. For that assessment year no notice under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act was issued to the petitioner. A general notice under section 22(1) had been issued as usual. Some time at the end of the year 1954, the Income-tax Officer sought the permission of the Commissioner of Income-tax to take action under section 34 of the Income-tax Act against the petitioner. Before, however, any proceedings under that provision of law could be initiated, the petitioner, on January 1, 1955, filed a return of his income in respect of the assessment year 1950-51. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]2SCR433
Mudholkar, J.1. This judgment will govern Criminal Appeals Nos. 177 and 178 also. All these three appeals arise out of the same trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr who conducted the trial convicted the appellant, Ramchandra Chaudhary who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1961 for an offence under s. 302 Indian Penal Code. He also convicted Baleshwar Rai alias Nepali Master, appellant in this appeal and Jogendra Chaudhary, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1961 of an offence under s. 302 read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code. He sentenced each of the three to death. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Patna, and sentences of death passed against them were confirmed by it. They have come up before this Court by special leave. 2. The prosecution story is briefly as follows :- On March 17, 1959 at about 8.00 p.m. the chaukidars of the village Fateha had assembled, as usual, in the 'crime center' of the village. Their names are - Anandi Paswan, (d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1963Ori115; 29(1963)CLT127
R.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is an appeal from theappellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge ofPuri modifying the judgment and decree passedin favour of the appellants by the Munsif ofKhurda.2. The dispute is between some of the Badu sebaks (appellant) of the well known Temple of Sri Lingaraj of Bhubaneswar on the one hand and the Board of Trustees of the Temple (respondents) appointed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, on the other, as regards their respective rights to appropriate the offerings made at the Temple by pilgrims. There was a previous dispute (O. S. No. 84 of 1949) which was compromised on 23-1-1951 and the terms of the compromise were incorporated in the decree (Ex. 1). In that litigation the trustees of the temple were (1) Shri Pareswar Mohanty, a senior Advocate of Cuttack Bar (since dead) (2) Shri Bichitrananda Das, and (3) Shri Satya Priya Mohanty. They and the Badus (appellants) joined in the compromise petition, but subsequently difference arose re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC828; 1964CriLJ705; [1964]2SCR752
Mudholkar, J.1. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Patna High Court affirming the conviction of the appellant under s. 47(a) of the Excise Act and the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for one year and of fine amounting to Rs. 2,000 awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, the substantial question which falls for decision is whether a confession made by the appellant and recorded by the Excise Inspector who was investigating the case is inadmissible by reason of the provisions of s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 2. It is not disputed before us by Mr. Chari that on August 3, 1957, a motor car bearing No. WBC 562 was stopped by the Excise Inspector, R. R. P. Sinha (P.W. 1) on the Bayley Road, near the New Secretariat, Patna, at 10.00 p.m. The car belongs to the appellant's brother Radhey Shyam; but he was not at that moment in the car. The car was then being driven by Jagdish Sah and the appellant was sitting by his side. Four other persons we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All274; 1965CriLJ672
M.H. Beg, J.1. The appellant Sheo Ratan Upadhya filed a complaint against the respondents, Gopal Chandra Nepali, Manager Sarvahitalshi Company, a publishing house of Varanasi, and Mahadeo Prasad, the proprietor of Deepak Press of Varanasi, for an alleged infringement of the copyright of a work called 'Shri Mahabharat' in Nepali language which was written by the complainant's father, Pandit Narendra Nath Upadhya. The book was first published in 1929 through the Sarvahitalshi Company during tne life time of its author who died on 19th June 1950, The complainant, the eldest son of his father, does not seem to possess personal knowledge about the publication or sale of the book and states in his complaint that he was busy with his studies until recently when he took up the management of the affairs of the family. The complainant alleges that his father had told him that he had never sold the copyright of the abovementloned work, which is mere hearsay and an admission in his own favour.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom195; (1965)67BOMLR317; 1965CriLJ616; ILR1965Bom648; 1965MhLJ705
Tambe, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 1963, is preferred by original accused No. 5 - Laxman Padma Bhagat : Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1964, is by Haroon Haji Abdulla, original accused No. 8 : and Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1964, is by Ayub Kassim Kika. Original accused No. 9. These three appeals can be disposed of by one judgment. They arise out of the judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court. Esplanade, Bombay, where the aforesaid three appellants along with 15 others were put up for trail. Out of these 18 accused, accused No. 17 was discharged; accused Nos. 14, 15 and 18 - Haji Mahamed Barkati, Haji Sattar and Yusuf Habib had been absconding, and therefore their cases were separated, original accused No. 4, Noor Mohamed Alu Bhati was jointly tried along with the remaining accused, but on the date of the judgment, it was found that he had absconded, and., therefore, his case was separated/ Accused No. 1 Govind Narayan Bengali, who was jointly tried, died after the clos...
Tag this Judgment!