Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC49; 1953CriLJ501; (1953)IMLJ185(SC); [1953]4SCR905
Mahajan, J.1. This petition and four others, viz., Nos. 350, 356, 362 and 366 of 1952, raise a question regarding the construction of section 11-A, inserted in Act IV of 1950 by the Preventive Detention (Second Amendment) Act, LXI of 1952. 2. Act IV of 1950, as it originally stood, was to expire on 1st April, 1951, but in that year an amending Act was passed which, among other things, prolonged its life till the 1st April, 1952. A fresh Act was passed in 1952 (Act XXXIV of 1952) called the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952. The effect of this Act was to prolong the life of the Act of 1950 for further six months, viz., till the 1st October, 1952. On the 22nd August, 1952, and Act further to amend the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, called the Preventive Detention (Second Amendment) Act, LXI of 1952, received the assent of the President, by which the life of the Act was extended till the 31st December, 1954. It was to come into force on a date appointed by the Central Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC20
Mahajan J.1.This appeal by special leave is directed against an acquittal order of the High Court of Nagpur in Criminal Appeals Nos. 121, 122 and 123 of 1950, preferred to that Court by the three respondents. Respt. 1, R. G. Limsey, is an advocate of the High Court of Nagpur, respt. 2, Kisanrao, is related to Limsey in that his cousin is married to Limsey, and respt. 3 Shaligram, is his friend and client. All the three respondents were tried for the murder of one Dattu Patel and were charged in these terms:'That, you on or about the 8th day of October 1949 at Nagpur did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Dattu Patel and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and within the cognizance of the Court of Session.' They were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Limsey was sentenced to death, and Kishanrao and Shaligram were sentenced to transportation for life. All of them appealed to the High Court and were acquitted. A petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC28
Bhagwati, J.1. The accused was charged that he on or about 25-7-1951 at village Bhiharihar committed murder of Behra and committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Penal Code and that on the same day and the same place he committed robbery of the property of Behra and as such voluntarily caused hurt to the same Behra and committed an offence punishable under Section 394, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge tried the accused with the aid of assessors for the offence under Section 302 and with the aid of jury of offence under Section 394. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty in regard to the offence under Section 394 but the assessors by a majority opined that the accused was guilty of an offence under Section 323 and not under Section 302 with which he had been charged.The learned Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and also agreed with the majority opinion of the assessors and convicted the accused of the offences under Section 394 and Section 323 but acquitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC459
Mahajan, J.1. The appellant was tried for the murder of two boys, Tek Chand and Rup Chand, aged 7 and 5 years respectively, by administering poison to them on 18-2-1950 at Ballabgarh. He was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Hissar but on appeal by the State Government was convicted by the High Court of Punjab and sentenced to death. Hence this appeal by him under Article 134(1)(a) of the Constitution.2. On the afternoon of 18-2-1952 these two unfortunate boys went to witness a snake charmer's show in front of the house of one Shambu Dayal. It is alleged that there Puran, the appellant, made them eat some 'Churan' which contained poison. When the boys returned home the elder one start ed having convulsions and his mother, Ram Kali, sent her daughter, Bimla, to call her father, Mulchand, from the post office, where he is employed as a telegraph peon. Her cries attracted Tribeni Pershad, Mulchand's brother, also to the place; as soon as Mulchand arrived, he went to fetch medical aid. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC10; 1953CriLJ180; [1953]4SCR254
Das, J.1. This appeal arises out of a habeas corpus petition filed by one Ajaib Singh in the High Court of Punjab for the production and release of one Musammat Sardaran alias Mukhtiar Kaur, a girl of about 12 years of age. 2. The material facts leading up to the filing of that petition may be shortly stated as follows. On the report made by one Major Babu Singh, Officer Commanding No. 2 Field Company, S. M. Faridkot, in his letter dated February 17, 1951, that the petitioner Ajaib Singh had three abducted persons in his possession, the recovery police of Ferozepore, on June 22, 1951, raided his house in village Shersingwalla and took the girl Musammat Sardaran into custody and delivered her to the custody of the Officer in charge of the Muslim Transit Camp at Ferozepore from whence she was later transferred to and lodged in the Recovered Muslim Women's Camp in Jullundur City. 3. A Sub-Inspector of Police named Nihar Dutt Sharma was deputed by the Superintendent of Police, Recovery, Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC28; 1953(1)BLJR115; (1953)IMLJ117(SC); [1953]4SCR197
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave granted by the Privy Council and limited to the question of court-fee, viz., whether on the memorandum of appeal presented to the High Court court-fee was payable under section 7(iv)(c) or article 17 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. 2. The question whether the memorandum of appeal was properly stamped arose in the following circumstances : Edward Mills Co. Ltd. is a joint stock company situate in Beawar, Ajmer-Merwara. In accordance with the provisions of the articles of the company one Seth Gadh Mal Lodha and Rai Sahib Moti Lal (respondent No. 2) were its chairman and managing director respectively since 1916. Seth Gadh Mal Lodha represented his family firm of Kanwal Nain Hamir Singh, while Rai Sahib Moti Lal represented the joint family firm of Champa Lal Ram Swaroop. On 1st July, 1938, Rai Sahib Moti Lal and his firm were adjudged insolvents by the Bombay High Court. The result was that respondent No. 2 had to vacate the office o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC478; 1953(0)KLT173(SC)
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Travancore-Cochin dated July 16, 1951 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1950, by which the learned Judges set aside an order of acquittal, made in favour of the appellant by the Special Magistrate, Trichur, in C. C. No. 1 of 1125 M.E. and converting it into one of conviction under Section 389, indian Penal Code (corresponding to Section 409, Indian Penal Code) sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000; in default of payment of fine, he was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further term of four months.2. It may be mentioned here that the appellant, who has been described as accused No. 1 in the Judgments of both the courts below, was tried along with two other persons as his co-accused by the Special Magistrate of Trichur, who made an order of acquittal in favour of all of them. The State Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC7; (1953)IMLJ108(SC); [1953]4SCR232
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and is directed against a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of Avadh dated September 4, 1946, affirming, on appeal, those of the Civil Judge, Bahraich, passed in Regular Suit No. 1 of 1941. 2. To appreciate the controversy between the parties to this appeal it would be necessary to state a few facts. One Raja Bisheshwar Bux Singh, the father of the plaintiff and of the defendant's husband, was a taluqdar of Oudh, and the estate known as Gangwal Estate, to which he succeeded in 1925 on the death of the widow of the last holder, is one to which the Oudh Estates Act (I of 1869) applies. Raja Bisheshwar died on 16th October, 1930, leaving behind him two sons, the elder of whom, Bajrang Bahadur, is the plaintiff in the present litigation, while the younger, whose name was Dhuj Singh, has died since then, being survived by his widow Bakhtraj Kuer, who is the defendant in the suit. Shortly before his death Raja Bisheshwar executed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC1; [1953]4SCR243
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs, Joti Prasad and Sat Narain, sued for partition and possession of their two-fifths share in the suit properties alleging that the first defendant was alone in possession of the same, having redeemed a mortgage executed by the joint family of which the plaintiffs and defendants were members, in favour of one Reghumal in the year 1896 on paying Rs. 5,800. Defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded as co-sharers. Out of them, defendants 2 and 3 admitted the claims of the plaintiffs. Defendant 4 died pending suit, and her name was struck off. Defendant 5 supported the first defendant. On the date of the trial court's decree, the two plaintiffs were held entitled to one-sixth share each. 2. The first defendant resisted the plaintiffs' claim. He contended that the redemption by him in 1920 was not on behalf of the joint family as alleged by the plaintiffs but on his own account as there had been a disruption of the joint family status much earlier, and that be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC16; (1953)55BOMLR199; [1953]4SCR185
Das, J.1. This is an appeal filed with the special leave of this Court. It is directed against the judgment and decree passed on December 2, 1949, by a Division Bench (Weston and Shah JJ.) of the Bombay High Court reversing, on the ground of absence of jurisdiction, the judgment and decree for possession passed on January 24, 1949, by the Bombay City Civil Court and directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. 2. There is no dispute as to the facts material for the purposes of this appeal. On or about April 15, 1908, the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay put up to auction plots Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of new survey Nos. 8234, 8235 and 8244 situate on the Princess Street Estate of the Board containing an area of 2235 square yards for being let on certain conditions. One Sitaram Luxman was the highest bidder and was declared the tenant at an annual rent per square yard to be calculated at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent. of Rs. 29 per square ya...
Tag this Judgment!