Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC1
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court at Nagpur, reversing the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, and convicting the appellant for the offence of murder and passing a sentence of death on him under Section 302, Penal Code. The brief facts are these.One Kawadu had taken two mango trees on rent from the owners. He used to watch the fruits during the daytime and returned to his house in the evening. On 26-5-1949 he went as usual from his residence to watch the trees and went home for his mid-day meal. After taking his meal he went to resume his watch but did not return home in the evening. His wife thereupon got anxious and with some others went to the place where Kawadu used to sit. They found Kawadu lying dead about a few yards away from the hut which he had constructed near the trees. Certain gold ornaments which he used to wear on his ears were found missing. A report of the death was made and police investigation fol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC157; 1951CriLJ373; (1951)IMLJ389(SC); [1951]2SCR167
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay, ordering the release of the respondent who was detained in custody under a detention order made under the Preventive detention Act (IV of 1950). The respondent was first arrested on the 18th of December, 1948, under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1948 (Bombay Act IV of 1947), but was released on the 11th of November, 1949. He was arrested again on the 21st of April, 1950, under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and on the 29th of April, 1950, grounds for his detention were supplied to him. They were in the following terms : 'That you are engaged and are likely to be engaged in promoting acts of sabotage on railway and railway property in Greater Bombay.' The respondent filed a habeas corpus petition on the 31st of July, 1950, in which, after reciting his previous arrest and release, in paragraphs 6 and 7 he mentioned as follows :- '(6) On his release the applicant left Bombay and stayed out of Bomb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC174; 1951CriLJ400; (1951)IMLJ431(SC); [1951]2SCR212
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal under article 132 of the Constitution of India from the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta, which rejected the habeas corpus petitions of the appellants. The detention orders under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, in all cases were served on the appellants on the 26th February, 1950 and the grounds for the detention were served on the 14th March, 1950. By way of specimen we quote one of them : 'You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, (Act IV of 1950), on the following grounds :- (1) That you have been assisting the operations of the Communist Party of India, which along with its volunteer organisations has been declared unlawful by Government under section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XIV of 1908), and which has for its object commission of rioting with deadly weapons, robbery, dacoity, arson and mur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC128; (1951)53BOMLR458; 1951CriLJ680; (1951)IMLJ370(SC); [1951]2SCR228
Das, J.1. At all material times the petitioner, who is the appellant before us, was the Secretary of People's Publishing House, Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at 190-B, Khedwadi Main Road in Bombay. In September, 1949, a pamphlet entitled 'Railway Mazdooron ke khilaf Nai Zazish' is alleged to have been published in Bombay by the petitioner as the secretary of that company. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the pamphlet was published as a 'book' within the meaning of section 1 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (XXV of 1867) and that the provisions of that Act had been duly complied with. The Bombay Government authorities, however, took the view that the pamphlet was a 'news sheet' within the meaning of section 2(6) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, and that as it had been published without the authority required by section 15(1) of that Act, the petitioner had committed an offence punishable un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC97; [1951]19ITR174(SC); (1951)IMLJ384(SC); [1951]2SCR127
Das, J.1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution for appropriate orders for the protection of what the petitioner claims to be his fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 31. This is said to be a test case, for, on its decision, we are told, depend the rights of numerous other persons whose interests are similar to those of the petitioner. 2. There is no serious controversy as to the facts material for the purposes of this application. They are shortly as follows : On May 5, 1948, the then Rulers of eight Punjab States including Patiala and Nabha with the concurrence and guarantee of the Government of India entered into a covenant agreeing to unite and integrate their territories in one State with a common executive, legislature and judiciary by the name of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, hereinafter compendiously referred to as the Pepsu. By Article 111(6) of the covenant the then Ruler of Patiala became the first President or Raj Pramukh of the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC155; [1951]2SCR138
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. 1. The decision of these four appeals, which are connected with each other and which have arisen out of orders made by the High Court of Patna in four Miscellaneous Appeals, depends on the interpretation of Section 7 of the Bihar Money-lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939. 2. The facts which have led to the appeals are found briefly stated in the petition filed by the present appellants in the 3rd Court of Sub-Judge, Patna, and may be re-stated here for convenient reference :- 'The father of the petitioners borrowed Rs. 40,000 from the guru (ancestor) of the decree-holder under mortgage bond, dated 11-1-1893. Out of Rs. 40,370-7-6 interest and compound interest upto 4-1-1910, Rs. 32,370-7-6 was paid in cash and for the balance Rs. 8,000 interest and Rs. 40,000 principal, i.e., for Rs. 48,000 a Mortgage Suit No. 14 of 1910 was filed in 1st Court of the Sub-Judge, Patna, and in lieu of the claim and cost of the said suit two fresh mortgage bonds were ex...
Tag this Judgment!