Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC199; 1957CriLJ325
Imam, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court. The appellants were convicted under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life for the murder of Suratsingh and Shardulsingh. They were also convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for having caused hurt to Suratsingh and Shardulsingh for causing injuries to them by shooting them with fire-arms. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The Sessions Judge had sentenced Mangalsingh to death and the other appellants to transportation for life for the murder of the deceased, but the High Court reduced the sentence of Mangalsingh to transportation for life. The Sessions Judge had framed charges under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and, having found them guilty of it, sentenced them to 10 years' rigorous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC23; 1957(0)BLJR1; (1957)59BOMLR83; 1957CriLJ5; [1956]1SCR644
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. These are petitions under article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. On 26th January, 1956 the District Magistrate, Thana, passed orders under section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the detention of the petitioners, and in execution of the orders, they were arrested on 27th January, 1956. The next day, the District Magistrate sent his report to the State Government which on 3rd February 1956 approved of the same. Meantime, on 30th January, 1956 the District Magistrate formulated the grounds on which the orders of detention were made, and the same were communicated to the petitioners on 31st January 1956. A copy of these grounds was sent to the State Government on 6th February, 1956.2. The petitioners challenge the validity of the detention on two grounds. They contend firstly that the grounds for the order of detention which were furnished to them under section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC28; 1957(0)BLJR260; (1957)59BOMLR87; 1957CriLJ10; [1956]1SCR653
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. These are petitions filed under article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of writs in the nature of habeas corpus. They arise on the same facts and raise the same questions. 2. On 13-1-1956 the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, passed orders under section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing the detention of the present petitioners, and pursuant thereto, they were actually arrested on 16-1-1956. The grounds on which the orders were made were formulated on 19-1-1956, and communicated to the petitioners the next day. On 21-1-1956 the Commissioner reported the fact of the order and the grounds therefore to the State Government, which approved of the same on 23-1-1956. 3. The contention of the petitioners before us is that when the Commissioner passed the orders for detention on 13-1-1956, it was his duty under section 3(3) to report that fact forthwith to the State Government, and as he did not do so until...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC340; 1957CriLJ422
Imam, J.1. These three appeals are by special leave against the decision of the High Court of Madras. The appellants were tried for the offence of conspiracy to cheat members of the public and for specific offences of cheating in pursuance of that conspiracy. The Additional Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli acquitted appellant Swamirathnam of all the charges framed against him. He convicted the appellants Abbas and Abu Bucker of the offence of conspiracy. Abbas was convicted by him with respect to the charges framed against him concerning the offence of cheating P. W. 47, Krishnaswami Naicker. He. however, acquitted Abu Bucker with respect to all the charges concerning specific offences of cheating framed against him. Appeals were filed in the High Court by the convicted persons and by the Government against the acquittal of Swamirathnam and Abu Bucker. It is unnecessary, in the present case, to mention the names of other accused, who were convicted or acquitted by the Sessions Judge, as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC324; 1957CriLJ420
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal, by special leave, preferred by Dharman, son of Dhani Ram (accused No. 2), against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court of Punjab, at Simla, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of transportation for life passed on him by the Sessions Judge of Rohtak.2. The facts which gave rise to the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows:--There was a dispute regarding a vacant piece of shamilat land in which the contending parties were, the party of the accused on one side and the party of the deceased on the other. Whereas the accused claimed that the land was in their possession, the party of the deceased put forward the claim that they had set up a lime crushing machine on the land and that the land had been in their possession for many years. On the 13th of June, 1953, the party of the deceased built a kacha wall near this machine which had the effect of shutting off the door of a pucca gher, belonging to the party of the accused. P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC354
Bhagwati, J.1. This Appeal with Special Leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab High Court which dismissed in limine the petition of the appellant for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Certain industrial disputes arose between the management of the appellant and the workers of the said Mills as represented by the Dhariwal Mills Mazdoor Union, Dhariwal and by a notification dated the 30th October, 1953, hereafter referred to as the first reference, they were referred by the Punjab Government for adjudication to respondent 1, Shri Avtar Narain Gujral, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab. Further disputes arose between the parties and the same were also referred to the same Tribunal by a notification dated the 12th December, 1953, hereafter referred to as the second reference. Respondent 1, after hearing the parties, made his award on both the references on the 9th July, 1954, and the same was submitted to the Punjab Government which published it in the Punjab Official ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC757; 1957(0)BLJR23; [1956]1SCR639
Bhagwati, J.1. The Appellant was charged under Section 411, Indian Penal Code with dishonestly receiving or retaining in his possession one Hillman Car number WBD 4514 bearing Engine and Chassis No. A1178482 WSO knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. The learned Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, convicted him of this offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. The Appellant took an appeal to the High court at Calcutta and a Division Bench of the High Court constituted by Mr. Justice Jyoti Prokash Mitter and Mr. Justice Sisir Kumar Sen dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed upon him. The Appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal to this Court and that petition according to what we are told is the practice obtaining in the Calcutta High court came before a Division Bench differently constituted - a Bench constituted by the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice S. C. Lahiri. This Bench allowed the petition an...
Tag this Judgment!