Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC441; (1951)IIMLJ291; [1951]2SCR729
Bose, J.1. This is an appeal under article 136(1) of the Constitution. The appellant, Tara Singh, was convicted of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge of Amritsar and sentenced to death. On appeal the High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the sentence. Tara Singh has made a further appeal to this Court. 2. As we intend to order a retrial, it will not be desirable to say anything about the merits of the case. The case for the prosecution is that two persons, Milkha Singh and Hakam Singh, were murdered in the early hours of the morning of Friday the 30th of September, 1949. The former is the appellant's uncle. He died on the spot. The latter is the appellant's father. He was removed to the hospital and died there on Friday, the 7th of October, 1949. 3. The murders are said to have been committed about three in the morning. The appellant's brother Narindar Singh reported the occurrence at the Police Station, about 7 miles distant, at 8.45 the same morning. According to this r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC575; (1956)58BOMLR1026; 1956CriLJ1116; [1956]1SCR483
Sinha, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave directed against the concurrent orders and judgments of the courts below convicting the appellant under section 409, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 201 or in default, further six weeks rigorous imprisonment. As the appellant had been convicted and sentenced for a similar offence in another case tried by the same Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, he directed the sentence in this case to run concurrently with the sentence in the other case. The charge against the accused in the trial court is in these terms :- 'The Accused is charged under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for committing criminal breach of trust in respect of property to wit 3% Government Promissory Loan Notes 1966-68 of the face value of Rs. 50,000 and 2 1/2% Government Promissory Notes 1961 of the face value of Rs. 25,000 in or about February to May 1949 entrusted to him in his capaci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1953]4SCR476
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. These are petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India for directions or orders or writs to enforce the fundamental rights of the petitioners to property by prohibiting the respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, from enforcing their alleged rights under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950.2. The several petitioners entered into contracts and agreements with the previous proprietors of certain estates and mahals in the State under which it is said they acquired the rights to pluck, collect and carry away tendu leaves, to cultivate, culture and acquire lac, and to cut and carry away teak and timber and miscellaneous species of trees called hardwood and bamboos. The contracts and agreements are in writing; some of them are registered. There is no dispute about their genuineness, and it has not been alleged that they are collusive or fraudulent transactions. Their dates and the several sums of money paid as consideration are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC224; [1954]1SCR803
ORDER, 1953. ........................ 2. In this Order unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context (a) 'Coal' includes coke but does not include cinder and ashes. (c) 'The Licensing Authority' means the District Magistrate of the District or any other officer authorised by him to perform his functions under this Order and includes the District Supply Officer of the district. (d) 'Licensee' means a person holding a license under the provisions of this Order in Form 'A' or in Form 'B'. 3. (1) No person shall stock, sell, store for sale or utilise coal for burning bricks or shall otherwise dispose of coal in this State except under a license in Form 'A' or 'B' granted under this Order or in accordance with the provisions of the Order. (2) Nothing contained in sub-clause (1) - (a) Shall in so far as it related to taking out a licence for stocking or storing coal for their own consumption, apply to the stocks held by persons or undertakings obtaining coal on permits...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC131; 1953CriLJ668; [1953]4SCR546
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. One Kanwar Bikram Singh was a relation of the Rana of Kuthar. He was a jamindar with some properties. Bishanpura within the police station, Solan, was his summer resort. Manimajra in the Ambala District was his place of residence on the plains. He had married in 1938 Kalawati, one of the two appellants. She was herself a daughter of the late Raja of Nalagarh through a mistress. 2. Kanwar Bikram Singh was murdered during the early morning hours of 16th July, 1951, as he lay asleep on the roof of his haveli or mansion at Bishanpura. He had several incised injuries on his person. The case for the prosecution is that Ranjit Singh, the other appellant, who was a distant cousin of the deceased, committed the murder with the help and connivance of Kalawati. It is stated for the prosecution that the two appellants developed an illicit intimacy with each other, and that they got rid of Kanwar Bikram Singh, as he was cruel in his behavior to Kalawati. The last act of i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC300; [1959]Supp1SCR92
Subba Rao, J. 1. These three appeals by certificate granted by the High Court are directed against the common order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated July 10, 1953, dismissing three writ petitions filed by the appellants impugning the validity of the provisions of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act (Mad XX of 1933), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, and certain notifications issued by the first respondent herein in pursuance thereof. 2. The Act was passed to provide for the better regulation of the buying and selling of commercial crops in the State of Madras and for that purpose to establish markets and make Rules for their proper administration. On May 18, 1951, the State Government issued G.O. No. 1049 (Food & Agriculture Department) extending the provisions of the Act to Ramanathapuram and Tirunelveli Districts in respect of cotton and groundnuts. On February 25, 1952, the State Government issued G.O. No. 251 (Food & Agricultur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC801; 1955CriLJ1647; (1956)IMLJ31(SC); [1955]2SCR570
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. The appellant Deonandan Mishra (Deonandan Missir) who was a stenographer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patna, has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his second wife, Smt. Parbati Devi, on the night of the 3rd/4th September, 1953 and sentenced to transportation for life. The deceased was married to the appellant in or about the year 1941 and was his second wife. As appears from the subsequent events, she was considered to be a woman of loose morals. She appear to have been forsaken by her husband as also by her father in or about the year 1945 and to have sought shelter in the Anath Ashram at Gaya. Through the intervention of the secretary of the Ashram and with the consent of both the husband and the father, she got remarried to one Nand Lall of Punjab in December, 1945. After a stay of about an year and a half with Nand Lall in Punjab, she appears...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC635(SC); 2010(1)SCALE133; (2010)2SCC367
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in appeal from CMA No. 463 of 2001, affirming the Judgment and award dated 31st of May, 1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Roorkee (in short, 'the Tribunal' ) in Motor Accident Claim No. 36 of 1995 whereby the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 7,77,500/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants along with 12% simple interest against the National Insurance Company Limited.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgments very carefully in depth and in detail. After some arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, the parties have agreed before us that this appeal may be disposed of on compromise in the following manner:a) The total compensation may be fixed at Rs. 10 Lakhs with simple interest @ 12% per annum, which shall be paid by the Insurance Company, the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC369; 1957CriLJ552; [1957]1SCR623
Jagannadhadas, J.1. The appellant, K. N. Mehra, and one M. Z. Phillips were both convicted under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to simple imprisonment by the trial Magistrate for eighteen months and a fine of Rs. 750 with imprisonment in default of payment of fine for a further term of four months. The conviction and sentence against them have been confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge and on revision by the High Court. The appeal before us is by special leave obtained on behalf of the appellant Mehra alone.2. Both Mehra and Phillips were cadets on training in the Indian Air Force Academy, Jodhpur. The prosecution is with reference to an incident which is rather extraordinary being for alleged theft of an aircraft, which, according to the evidence of the Commanding Officer, P.W. 1, has never so far occurred. The alleged theft was on May 14, 1952. Phillips was discharged from the Academy just the previous day, i.e., May 13, 1952, on grounds of misconduct. Mehra was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC41; 1960CriLJ145; [1960]1SCR736
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court in a criminal matter. The facts of the case may be set out in some detail to bring out the point raised in this appeal. A complaint was filed by Rajendra Kumar Jain against the four appellants and three others under Sections 409, 465, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary for present purposes to set out the details of the complaint. Suffice it to say that after the statement of the complainant under s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code) summonses were issued to the accused persons retiring them to answer a charge under s. 406 of the Penal Code. Prosecution witnesses were then examined and cross-examined and the statements of the accused persons recorded. The Magistrate then heard arguments on the question of framing of charges which were concluded on September 23, 1954. It was then ordered that the case should be put up on September 30, ...
Tag this Judgment!