Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC210; 26(1960)CLT173(SC); 1960CriLJ286; 1978(2)ELT294(SC); [1960]1SCR991
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Rajasthan, under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against its judgment dated September 20, 1957, confirming that of the Munsif-Magistrate, Hinduan, acquitting the appellant of the charge under s. 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The material facts lie in a small compass. The Deputy Superintendent of the Central Excise, having his head-quarters at Bharatpur, received information that one Sulled and his son, Rehman, the respondent herein, had cultivated tobacco but had not paid the excise duty payable thereon. On September 9, 1953, the Deputy Superintendent, accompanied by an Inspector of Central Excise, a sepoy, a chowkidar and two motbirs went to the house of Rehman at 2 p.m., with a view to search his house to find out whether he had stored tobacco there. When they declared their intention to do so, the respondent and one Dhamman, it is alleged, obstructed the making of the sear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC219; [1960(1)FLR178]; (1960)ILLJ13SC; [1960]2SCR1
Sinha, C.J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the Award dated November 15, 1956, made by the Industrial Tribunal, Assam. The dispute arose between the employers, the Indian General Navigation & Railway Company Limited, carrying on business at No. 4, Fairlie Place, Calcutta, and the Rivers Steam Navigation Company Limited, carrying on business at No. 2, Fairlie Place, Calcutta, which will be referred to, in the course of this judgment, as 'the appellants', and their workmen at Dhubri Ghat, represented by the Dhubri Transhipment Labour Union and Dhubri Local Ghat Transhipment Labour Union, Dhubri, which will be referred to hereinafter as the 'the respondents'. The Award aforesaid was published in the Assam Gazette on December 19, 1956. 2. It is necessary to state the following facts in order to appreciate the points arising for decision in this case : The appellants carry on business of inland water transport in North East India and in Pakistan, in association with each other, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC247; (1960)ILLJ798SC; [1960]1SCR981
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the Mysore High Court in a service matter. The appellant was in the service of the Mysore State. In 1951 he was the manager of the Government Reserve Food-grains Depot at Pandavapura. He was transferred from Pandavapura on May 15, 1951, and handed over charge of the Depot to one Shri Srinivasachar. A report was then made by Shri Srinivasachar that there was shortage of 27 pallas of ragi in the stock handed over to him. Thereupon an enquiry was held by the Sub-Division Officer. The appellant was dissatisfied with the enquiry as according to him it had not been properly conducted. He therefore complained against the Sub-Division Officer and also brought it to the notice of the higher authorities that certain rooms containing stock of gunny bags had been sealed and the seals were not allowed to be broken till March 24, 1952, with the result that a large number of gunny bags which were stocked there had deteriorated and h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC142; (1960)62BOMLR162; [1960]1SCR968
Sarkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, hereinafter called the Act, for registration of a trade mark. The application was made by the respondent and it was opposed by the appellant. 2. The respondent is a manufacturer of biscuits. On November 5, 1949, it made the application for registration of the mark 'Gluvita' in respect of the goods specified in class 30, which mark, it appeared later, it had not used prior to that date. The Registrar ordered the application to be advertised before acceptance on the respondent's agreeing to limit the registration to biscuits only which were one of the classes of goods specified in class 30. 3. The appellant is a corporation organised under the laws of the State of New Jersey in the United States. On August 31, 1942, it had registered the mark 'Glucovita' under the Act in class 30 in respect of 'Dextrose (d-Glucose powder mixed with vitamins), a substance used as food or as an ingredient in food; g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC148; [1960]1SCR953
Sarkar, J. 1. In the General Elections of 1957, the appellant was returned to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the Manoharpur constituency in the district of Singhbhum. He is an Adibasi belonging to the 'Ho' community. The electors for that constituency largely belonged to the Adibasi communities of Hos, Mundas and Oraons. There are also people from Madhya Pradesh and other people belonging to communities other than Adibasis, there. The Hos and Oraons speak their own respective languages and the non-Adibasi population is largely Hindi speaking. It may be that some members of the Adibasi communities speak Hindi also. 2. The appellant had been set up as a candidate by the Jharkhand party and was supported by that party in the election. The object of that party is to have a separate administrative unit for what it calls the Jharkhand area. This is an area consisting of parts of Bihar, Orissa, Bengal and Madhya Pradesh and is inhabited largely by Adibasis. It is not the object of the Jh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC133; 1960CriLJ174; (1960)IIMLJ69(SC); [1960]1SCR945
Sarkar, J.1. The appellant is a medical doctor and at the material time, he was the Civil Surgeon of Dibrugarh. He was a witness in a criminal case being G. P. Case No. 654/54 in which three persons were charged inter alia under s. 376 of the Indian Penal Code with the offence of rape. The case was tried with the aid of a jury and resulted in a verdict of acquittal in respect of that charge. There was an appeal to the High Court of Assam against the acquittal which was allowed and two of the accused persons were convicted. 2. The offence was said to have been committed on a minor girl named Roheswari Chetia sometime in the afternoon of March 19, 1954. The same day at 6 p.m., she was examined by Dr. Dhanbir Pait, the doctor in charge of Moran Dispensary, near which the offence was alleged to have been committed. It appears that the police produced her for another medical examination at the District town of Dibrugarh the next day and she was then examined by Dr. Mahibulla who was an assi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC184; 26(1960)CLT204(SC); 1960CriLJ281; [1960]1SCR941
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the question of true interpretation of s. 128 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, (hereinafter called the Act). The facts lie in a small compass and they are not in dispute. 2. The State Government issued a notification defining the municipal limits of the town of Mainpuri. Under this notification the goods-shed of the Mainpuri railway station is included within Mainpuri municipal limits, but the rest of the station is excluded therefrom. A motorable road connects the station with the main inhabited area of the town. The Municipality fixed a toll-barrier on this road between the railway goods-shed and the inhabited area of the town. The Mainpuri Electric Supply and General Mills Co. Ltd., Mainpuri, supplies electricity to Mainpuri town. It purchases coal from places outside Mainpuri and receives the same in railway wagons, which are unloaded and kept in the goods-shed. The respondent owns a truck. He was engaged to carry the coal from the goods-she...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC154; 26(1960)CLT225(SC); 1960CriLJ177; [1960]1SCR924
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are somewhat sordid and we shall set out such of them only as are relevant to it. On December 14, 1954, a person whom we shall refer to as X submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Delhi City, to the effect that one of his daughters was being molested and threatened by the appellant and that he had received letters of an objectionable nature from him 'for the purpose of blackmailing and extorting money'. Some of these letters were shown to the Superintendent of Police. The latter sent the report to the Station Officer, Karol Bagh police station, with a direction to register a case under s. 506, Indian Penal Code, and investigate it. The Station Officer investigated the case and submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant. He also took in charge some of the letters said to have been received by X. They ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC128; 1960CriLJ171; [1960]1SCR935
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Patna, raises ashort question about the construction of Art. 9 in Sch. I of Court Fees Act VIIof 1870 (hereinafter called the Act). A proceeding was instituted against theappellant, Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee, under s. 107 of the Code of CriminalProcedure in the Court of the Magistrate of First Class at Bhagalpur; in thisproceeding the learned magistrate directed the appellant to execute a bond ofRs. 5,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to keep the peace for aperiod of one year. The appellant challenged this order by his appeal beforethe Additional Session Judge at Bhagalpur. The appellate judge agreed with thedecision of the learned magistrate and the appeal preferred by the appellantwas dismissed. The appellant then took this matter before the High Court atPatna by his Criminal Revision Application No. 924 of 1957. It appears that thecertified copies of the orders passed by the two courts below in ...
Tag this Judgment!