Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1317; [1963]Supp1SCR479
Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab by which a Criminal Revision filed against an appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana confirming the appellant's conviction and sentence was dismissed in limine. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant was prosecuted on a complaint filed by Mst. Ram Rakhi of the offence of defamation under s. 500, I.P.C. The appellant and Mst. Ram Rakhi were neighbours. The defamatory matter was contained in a communication addressed by the appellant who is a member of the police force to the District Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana. In this 'application' the appellant alleged that the complainant was a woman of loose character who was having illicit connection with goondas, her paramours coming to her frequently at nights and that her immoral activities reflected badly on the locality in which the appellant lived. There is no doubt that this was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC649; [1963]Supp1SCR439
Gajendragadkar, J.1. Since 1958 the State of Mysore has been endeavouring to make a special provision for the advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in the State of Mysore under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, and every time when an order is passed in that behalf, its validity has been challenged by writ proceedings. Four previous orders passed in that behalf were challenged by writ proceedings taken against the State under Art. 226 in the High Court of Mysore. The present petitions filed by the respective petitioners under Art. 32 dispute the validity of the last order passed by the State of Mysore on the July 31, 1962, under Art. 15(4). 2. Out of the twenty-three petitioners, six had applied for admission to the Pre-professional Class in Medicine in the Medical Colleges affiliated either to the Mysore University or to the Karnatak University, and seventeen had applied for admission to the First Year of the 5 Year integrated course leading to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC645; [1963]Supp1SCR429
Gajendragadkar, J.1. A charge-sheet was presented by the appellant the State of Madhya Pradesh against the respondents Peer Mohammad and his wife Mst. Khatton under s. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act) read with clause 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 (hereinafter called the Order) in the Court of the Magistrate 1st Class, Burhanpur. The case against the respondents was that they had entered India on May 13, 1956, on the strength of a Pakistani passport and a visa issued in their favour on May 8, 1956, and reached Burhanpur on May, 15, 1956. Even after the period of the visa had expired, they continued to stay in India. Consequently, the District Magistrate, Burhanpur, served a notice on them on May 14, 1957 calling upon them to leave India on or before May 28, 1957. The respondents did not comply with the notice and by their unauthorised and illegal over-stay in India, they rendered themselves liable under s. 14 of the Act and clause 7 of the Order. 2. The res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC575; (1963)65BOMLR332; 1964CriLJ437; (1963)IILLJ415SC; [1963]Supp1SCR485
Mudholkar, J.1. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the conviction and sentences passed on the appellant in respect of offences under s. 161, Indian Penal Code and s. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) read with s. 5(2) thereof, the only point urged is that the presumption raised against the appellant under s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be held to have been rebutted by the explanation given by him inasmuch as that explanation was both reasonable and probable. 2. In order to appreciate the contention it is necessary to state certain facts. 3. In the year 1954 the appellant was appointed Resident Engineer for Light Houses and posted to Bombay. He was due to retire in January, 1955 but he was given extensions from time to time. The complainant, M. M. Patel (who will hereafter be referred to as the complainant) is a building contractor. It was proposed to re-construct a light house at Tolkeshwar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC816; (1963)65BOMLR341; 1963MhLJ574(SC); [1963]Supp(1)SCR501
Mudholkar, J. 1. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court the question which arises for consideration is whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, could not take cognizance of a complaint against the appellant for an offence under s. 193, Indian Penal Code, because the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, who filed that complaint had failed to follow the procedure laid down in s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The appellant was a witness for the prosecution at the trial of one Rafique Ahmed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for offences of murder and abetment of murder, along with two other persons. When the appellant had been examined as a witness before the committing magistrate he deposed that in his presence Rafique Ahmed had stabbed the deceased Chand while he was running away. When, however, he was examined at the trial before the Court of Sessions three months later the appellant stated that while he was stan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]Supp(1)SCR419
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Patna upholding the appellant's conviction under s. 353, Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against him. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows : On the evening of October 29, 1957, Mr. Bhupendra Narain Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Patna Sadar circle, paid a surprise visit to the shop of Hazari Lall & Co., in Barah town in order to inspect the books of accounts maintained by the shop. At that time the appellant Hazari Lall was in the shop. Mr. Singh found that two sets of account books were kept in the shop. He took them up and started looking into them. The appellant snatched away both the books from him, passed them on to one of his servants who made them over to another servant who was on the upper floor. Mr. Singh directed his orderly peon to recover the books. The peon was, however, prevented by the appellant from going to the place where the accou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC666; [1963]Supp(1)SCR382
Mudholkar, J.1. These are appeals by a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad. They arise out of the same trial. The appellants in both the appeals except Chandrika Singh were convicted by the Second Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur, of offences under s. 471, Indian Penal Code read with ss. 467 and 468, I.P.C. and sentenced variously. Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal and Babu Lal were each convicted of offences under s. 417 read with s. 420 and Moti Lal of offences under s. 417, I.P.C. and Lachhimi Narain of offences under s. 420, I.P.C. Separate sentences were awarded to each of them in respect of these offences. All the six appellants were, in addition, convicted under s. 120B, I.P.C. and sentenced separately in respect of that offence. In appeal the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences passed on Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal, Babu Lal and Moti Lal of offences under s. 471 read with ss. 467 and 468, I.P.C. and also acquitted Moti Lal of the offence under s. 417, I.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC734; 1983(13)ELT1376(SC); [1963]Supp1SCR349
Wanchoo, J.1. These twenty-nine petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution rise common questions and will be dealt with together. They have been filed by two firms who obtained patentes to carry on business in Pondicherry in September, 1954, for the first time. As the facts in all the petitions are similar, we shall only give the facts generally to understand the questions raised before us. The two firms, it may be mentioned, did not carry on any business in Pondicherry before September, 1954, when they got a patente each and the proprietor of one of them is a resident of New Delhi while the proprietor of the other is a resident of Bombay. 2. The administration of Pondicherry was taken over by the Union of India from November 1, 1954. Before that Pondicherry was under the administration of the Government of France and was a free port. Import into Pondicherry was thus not subject to any restriction, except with regard to certain goods with which we are not concerned in the present peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC822; (1963)IILLJ667SC; [1963]Supp(1)SCR408
Mudholkar, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three separate trials before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, but were argued together as they raise identical questions. In all these trials, the appellant, who was a postman attached to the Bulandshahr post office was tried for offences under s. 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (VI of 1898), and in two of them, also for offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated the allegations against the appellant were that he either stole or secreted five registered letters and that he fabricated three receipts showing that the registered letters were received by the addressees. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of all these offences. The State then preferred an appeal against his acquittal in these three cases to the High Court of Allahabad but restricted the appeal to the acquittal of the appellant in respect of offences under s. 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC665; (1963)65BOMLR339; 1963MHLJ276(SC); [1963]Supp1SCR344
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay raises the question of construction of s. 3(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940, as amended by the Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1955, hereinafter called the Act. 2. This appeal has been argued on the basis of facts found by the High Court. The appellant was carrying on business in the name of Deepak Trading Corporation at Bulakhidas Building, Vithaldas Road, Bombay. On December 27, 1958, the Sub Inspector of Police, accompanied by the Drug Inspector, raided the said building and found large quantities of absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages, gauze and other things. It was found that the appellant was not only storing these goods in large quantities but was actually manufacturing them in Bombay and passing them off as though they were manufactured by a firm of repute in Secunderabad. The samples of the aforesaid articles and lint were sent to the Government Analyst, who reported that out of the...
Tag this Judgment!