Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC44; [1955]28ITR941(SC); (1956)IMLJ79(SC); [1955]2SCR925
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. These appeals come before us on special leave to appeal granted under article 136 of the Constitution against two orders of the Calcutta High Court dismissing Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 559 of 1951 and 312 of 1952 preferred by the appellants respectively. 2. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 559 of 1951, the High Court (Harries, C.J. and Banerjee, J.) confirmed an order made by a Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused on the ground of want of sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 312 of 1952, Lahiri and Guha, JJ. set aside an order made by another Presidency Magistrate that no sanction was required and they quashed the proceedings against the accused. 4. The incidents which gave rise to the two complaints are closely inter-related and can be set out briefly. In connection with certain proceedings pending before the Income Tax Investigation Commission it was found necessary to search two premises...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC116; 1956CriLJ291; (1956)IMLJ100(SC); [1955]2SCR1140
Bose, J. 1. This appeal was referred to a Bench of five Judges in order to determine whether there was a conflict of view between Nanak Chand v. The State of Punjab : 1955CriLJ721 and Suraj Pal v. The State of U.P. : 1955CriLJ1004 , and if so, to determine it. 2. The appeal is against a conviction for murder in which the lesser sentence was given. The main ground is that the appellant was charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34. His co-accused was acquitted, so, it was urged, the element of common intention drops out and accordingly section 34 cannot be called in aid. But the Courts below hold that the appellant inflicted the fatal blow and have made him directly liable for the murder. He contends that as he was not charged with having murdered the man personally he cannot be convicted under section 302. He relies on certain observations in Nanak Chand v. The State of Punjab ), and contends that the conviction is an illegality which cannot be cured and c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC43; [1955]2SCR1113
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution which arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner, Sadhu Ram, purchased from one Imam-ud-Din, a Muslim evacuee, 43 Bighas 14 Biswas of agricultural land comprised in Khasra Nos. 2135 to 2139, 2158, 2159, 2171, 2204 and 2206 with Shamlat rights in village Kaithal, District Karnal, Punjab. The sale deed was executed on the 6th September, 1947, and registered on the 9th September, 1947, before Imam-ud-Din left for Pakistan. The consideration therefore was Rs. 3,000 and as much as Rs. 2,700 thereof appears to have been paid by the petitioner to the vendor before the Sub-Registrar. Possession also was transferred on the execution of the sale-deed. Mutation was made by the revenue authorities on the 23rd January, 1948. East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act XIV of 1947) came into force on the 12th of December, 1947. It was amended by East Punjab Evacuees' (Admin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC63; [1955]2SCR988
Imam, J.1. The petitioners have filed this application under article 32 of the Constitution claiming that the buildings and lands as set out in the Schedule annexed to the petition and marked 'A' (hereinafter referred to as the disputed properties) did not vest in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioner No. 1 in his individual capacity was at one time the owner of the disputed properties which lie within Touzi No. 28 of the Collectorate of Hazaribagh. On the 29th of December, 1947 petitioner No. 1 as owner leased out the disputed properties to a Company known as Mineral Development Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The Company took possession of the disputed properties and has been paying rent. On the 7th of April, 1949 petitioner No. 1 in his individual capacity executed a deed of settlement whereby he transferred the disputed properties to three trustees, namely, himself and petitioners ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC77; [1955]2SCR1117
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property dated the 20th May, 1953, revising an order of the Additional Custodian of East Punjab, Delhi, dated the 20th March, 1952. The two questions raised before us on the facts and circumstances, to be stated, are (1) whether the Custodian-General had the revisional power which he purported to exercise, and (2) was the order of the Custodian-General on its merits such as to call for interference by this Court. 2. The appellant before us, one Mrs. Indira Sohanlal, is a displaced person from Lahore. She was the owner of a house at Lahore known as 5, Danepur Road. Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon of West Pakistan owned 766 bighas of agricultural land in a village called Punjab Khore within the State of Delhi. An oral exchange is said to have taken place between these two, of the said properties, on the 10th October, 1947. In pursuance of that exchange Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon is said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC158; 1956CriLJ331
S.R. Das, Actg. C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of the four Criminal Appeals Nos. 107 to 110 of 1954.2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Madras under certificates granted under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution by the High Court of Madras which, by its judgment in revision dated the 12th February 1954, reversed the order dated the 29th December 1952 passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate II, Salem, and acquitted the accused.3. The respondents are merchants dealing in hides and skins in Salem. Their business consists mainly in the purchase of hides and skins and exporting the same to foreign countries. The respondents were assessed to sales tax in different amounts on their respective turnovers of purchases of skins made by them in pursuance of orders placed with them by foreign buyers for the supply of the same. The respondents having failed to pay the entirety of the amounts of sales tax so assessed, complaints were laid against them under Section 15 (b) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC17; 22(1956)CLT101(SC); (1956)IMLJ69(SC); [1955]2SCR919
Bose, J. 1. This judgment will also govern Petitions Nos. 287, 288, 289 and 304 of 1955. We will set out the facts in Petition No. 286 of 1955. The others follow the same pattern. 2. The dispute is about fishery rights in the Chilka lake which is situate in what was once the estate of the Raja of Parikud. This estate vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952) on 24-9-1953 and has now ceased to exist in its original form. The Act came into force on 9-2-1952. 3. The further facts are set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition in the following terms : 'That the petitioners carry on the business of catching and selling fish particularly from fisheries within the said lake. That long before the vesting of the estate the petitioners had entered into contracts with the ex proprietor and had obtained from the latter, on payment of heavy sums, licences for catching and appropriating all the fish from the fisheries detailed in the schedu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC94; (1956)IMLJ63(SC); [1955]2SCR907
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. This appeal raises a question of considerable importance as to the rights of holders of darmila or post-settlement inams of portions of a village under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The subject-matter of this appeal is an one-sixteenth share in the village of Karuppur situated within the ambit of the Zamindari of Ramanathapuram. The holders of this ancient Zamindari were, during the 18th Century, the virtual rulers of that part of South India, and were known as Sethupathis or the Lords of Rameswaram and the adjacent isles and seas. In 1757 Muthu Vijaya Ragunatha, the then Rajah of Ramanathapuram, made a grant of the whole of the village of Karuppur to a number of persons for various charitable purposes. In 1802, the estate was permanently settled, and an istimrari sanad was issued in favour of the Rajah. Before that date, the donees under the grant of 1757 rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC162
Sinha, J.1. The only question for determination in this appeal, by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, is whether the transaction dated the 18th July 1934 is binding on the plaintiffs, respondents in this Court. It is not disputed that if that transaction characterised as a family arrangement and evidenced by Ex. D-1 is binding on the plaintiffs, the suit must fail, as held by the trial court in its judgment dated the 15th July 1943.If, on the other hand, the transaction is not binding on the plaintiffs, the suit must stand decreed, as held by the High Court by its judgment dated the 19th December, 1946. The facts of this case may shortly be stated as follows :2. Rangaswami Iyengar, who died in 1894, and Doraiswami Iyengar, who died in 1948 and who was the first defendant in the suit giving rise to this appeal, were divided brothers. Rangaswami died leaving him surviving his widow Ranganayaki Ammal and his infant son Krishnaswami, who died in 1895-96 unmarried. Ranganayaki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC168; 1956CriLJ334
Bhagwati, J.1. This Appeal with special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Mysore reversing the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Bangalore, on a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.2. The appellant, accused No. 1, was charged that he, on the night of 9th March 1949, at about 10 p.m. in the village of Kodihalli, Kankanahalli Taluk, shot one Abdul Lateef Sab with a gun and caused his death and thus committed an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 2 was his son and accused No. 3 his son's friend and the charge against them was that they were present and actively participated in the commission of that offence and were thus guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused being of the opinion that the prosecution evidence was too insufficient to base a conviction thereupon. The State of Mysore took an appeal to the High Court and the High Court reversed ...
Tag this Judgment!