Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC59; (1952)IMLJ423(SC); [1952]1SCR391
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the petitioner's fundamental rights under article 19(1)(f) and article 31(1) alleged to have been violated by the Central Bank of India Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1882 and having its registered office at Bombay, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') 2. It appears that the petitioner held five shares in the share capital of the Bank which sold those shares to a third party in purported exercise of its right of lien for recovery of a debt due to it from the petitioner, and the transfer was registered in the books of the Bank in the year 1937. The petitioner thereupon instituted a series of proceedings in the High Court at Bombay on its original and appellate jurisdiction challenging the validity of the said sale and transfer. The latest of these proceedings was a suit filed against the Bank in 1951 wherein the plaint was rejected on 2nd March, 1951, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC467
Fazl Ali, J.1. The only question to be decided in this appeal relates to the sentence imposed on the appellant, and it arises in the following manner. The appellant was tried by a Magistrate of Jabalpur on the charge of having committed an offence under Section 377, Penal Code and was found guilty. While sentencing the appellant, the Magistrate observed as follows:'The accused is a first offender of 18 years of age. A deterrent sentence would be highly inappropriate in this case. I accordingly order that the accused shall receive 10 stripes under Section 4(b), Whipping Act in lieu of the sentence provided under Section 377, I. P. C.' The sentence imposed on the appellant was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Jabalpur, but, in revision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court pointed out that the sentence of whipping was illegal since the appellant was not a juvenile offender and the only other relevant provision of the Whipping Act was Section 4(b) which was not applicable to this case. Section 4(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC54; 1952CriLJ547; (1952)IMLJ440(SC); [1952]1SCR377
Bose, J.1. The appellant Rameshwar was charged with committing rape on a young girl Mst. Purni, eight years of age. He was committed to Sessions and was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Sawai Jaipur, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250. 2. An appeal made to the Sessions Judge at Jaipur that being the appropriate appellate tribunal in that area. The learned Sessions Judge held that the evidence was sufficient for moral conviction but fell short of legal proof because, in his opinion, the law requires corroboration of the story of the prosecution in such cases as a matter of precaution and the corroborative evidence, in so fat as it sought to connect the appellant with the crime, was legally insufficient though morally enough. He was satisfied however that the girl has been raped by somebody. Accordingly, he acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of the doubt. 3. The State of Sawai Jaipur and Gangapur appealed against the acquittal to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC52; 1952CriLJ331; (1952)IMLJ426(SC); [1952]1SCR193
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reversing the decision of the Session Judge of Aligarh in a criminal case. The appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge on charges under section 302 read with section 149, section 148, sections 325 and 326 read with section 149, and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, but were acquitted. On appeal by the State Government, the High Court reversed the Sessions Judge's decision, and convicted the appellants and sentenced them to transportation for life under section 302 read with section 149, to five years' rigorous imprisonment under sections 325 and 326 read with section 149, and to two years' rigorous imprisonment under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, all the sentences being made to run concurrently. The appellants thereafter applied to the Privy Council for special leave, which was granted on the 28th October, 1947. 2. The facts which were put before the court on behalf of the pros...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1952)IMLJ420(SC); [1952]1SCR371
Fazl Ali, J. 1.This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Patiala upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was tried by the Sessions Judge of Sangrur for the offence of murder and sentenced to death. 2. The prosecution story in a somewhat long and complicated one, but ignoring unnecessary details, the material facts may be shortly stated as follows :- 3. On the 5th October, 1949, there was a quarrel between the appellant and one Darbara Singh, in the course of which the appellant attacked the latter with a phawra (a cutting instrument). About that time, Gurmail Singh, the deceased persons returned to his house, which was close to the house of Darbara Singh, from his cotton field, where he had been working in order to take tea for his companions who were still working in his field. The appellant asked Gurmail Singh to lend him a spear to enable him to kill Darbara Singh, but since the latter refused to do so, there ensued a quarrel between him and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC47; (1952)IMLJ431(SC); [1952]1SCR179
Bose, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for contribution brought by the son of a mortgagor against the co-mortgagors. The parties are related as below :-Balai Lall Seal(died 1917)Meghamala Dassi(died 1945)Bejoy Lall Biswa Lall Tarak Lall Kedar Lall Naku Lall(D.23-5-33) (D. Nov. 1936) Deft 1 Deft. 2(Born (BornJugal Lall Hari Lall 22-11-1907) 7-2-1910)(Plff)2. The mortgagors were the plaintiff's father Tarak Lall and Tarak's two brothers Kedar and Naku. The mortgage was executed on the 12th June, 1936, in favour of one Mst. Gyarsi for a consideration of Rs. 80,000. For convenience I will call this the suit mortgage though this is not a suit on the mortgage. 3. The mortgagee sued in the year 1938 and obtained a preliminary decree for sale on the 17th of February, 1939, for a sum of Rs. 89,485-12-9 plus costs. The decree was made final on the 22nd of December, 1939. 4. In execution the mortgage proceeded against the property of the plaintiff alone (as Tarak's son) and, during the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC60; (1952)IMLJ414(SC); [1952]1SCR208
Mukherja, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated the 14th of March, 1945, which affirmed, on appeal, the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Satara, passed in Civil Suit No 890 of 1938. The appellants before us filed the suit as plaintiffs in the original court, for establishment of their title to the property in dispute which is known as Chikurde Estate, on the allegation that they were, under the Hindu Law, the nearest heirs of one Bhimabai, who was admittedly the last holder of the estate. The suit was brought initially against one defendant, namely, the Court of Wards, Satara, and admittedly the Court of Wards took possession of the property of Bhimabai, while she was alive, and is continuing in possession of the same even now after her death. Later on, defendants 2, 3, and 4, who put forward rival claims of succession to the estate, were allowed to intervene in the suit and were added as parties-defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC105; 1952CriLJ644; (1952)IMLJ411(SC); [1952]1SCR202
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta upholding the order of the Sessions Judge of Midnapore convicting the appellant under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant may be shortly stated as follows :- The appellant and injured person, Kumad Patra, are first cousins, and they live in a village called Andaria, their houses being only 3 or 4 cubits apart from each other. They had a dispute about a pathway adjoining their houses, which led to a tank, and they quarrelled about it on the 11th July, 1949. Two days later, on 13th July, when Kumad Patra was washing his hands at the brink of the village tank, the appellant came from behind and inflicted on him 17 injuries, with the result that two of his fingers had to be amputated and a piece of bone had to be extracted from his left thumb. The police being informed, started investigation and submitted a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC29; (1952)IMLJ292(SC); [1952]1SCR241
Mahajan, J.1. These eight appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Madras dated the 30th October, 1945, given in seven appeals preferred to it against the judgment of the District Judge of Madura in four suits O. S. Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7 of 1941, all of the which related to the Zamindari of Bodinaickanur in the Madura district and the properties connected therewith. The appeals were originally before the Privy Council in England, some by leave of the High court and others by special leave and are now before the us for disposal. 2. The zamindari of Bodinaickanur is an ancient impartible estate in the district of Madura, owned by a Hindu joint family. The genealogical tree of the family is as follows :- Thirumalai Bodi NaickerFaisal Zamindar|Rajaya Naicker (Died)|(1) (2) (3) (4)(5)------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | ||Bangaru Thirumali Viswanatha Sundara KulasekaraChokkalingasamiBodi Naiker Naicker Pandia Naicker Pandia Naic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC27; 1952CriLJ321; [1952]1SCR368
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is petition under article 32 of the Constitution praying for the release of the petitioner from his alleged unlawful detention. We accepted the petition and, at the conclusion of the hearing, ordered the petitioner to be released. We now proceed to give the reasons for our order. 2. The petitioner was arrested and detained under an order dated 1st March, 1950, made by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, under section 3(10) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner as required by section 7 of the Act on 15th March, 1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of the order on various grounds, but, while the petition was pending after this Court issued a rule nisi to the respondent, the petitioner was served on 6th August with another detention order dated 30th July, 1951, purporting to be made by the Governor of Punjab under sub-section (1) of section 3 and sec...
Tag this Judgment!