Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC205; 1964(0)KLT656(SC); 1964MhLJ503(SC); [1964]4SCR199
Ayyangar, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Patna dismissing an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and the sentence passed on him by the Sessions Judge, Champaran. 2. The appellant was charged with an offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Mst. Madilen by contact with an electrically charged naked copper wire which he had fixed up at the back of his house with a view to prevent the entry of intruders into his latrine. The deceased Madilen was an inmate of a house near that of the accused. The wall of the latrine of the house of the deceased had fallen down about a week prior to the day of the occurrence - July 16, 1959, with the result that her latrine had become exposed to public view. Consequently the deceased, among others, started using the latrine of the accused. The accused resented this and made it clear to them that they did not have his permission to use it and protested agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC79; 1965CriLJ112
M. Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1961 and Murder Reference No. 4 of 1961 decided on February 17, 1961. The appellant Mohinder Singh has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Originally, three others were tried with him but they were acquitted by the Court of Session. Mohinder Singh was sentenced by the Court of Session to death, but on appeal the High Court altered the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for life.2. Mohinder Singh, who is a jat, had contracted illicit intimacy with one Mst. Puro a Mazhbi woman who was abandoned by her husband. He used to visit her at her house and this was resented by the other Mazhbis including some of her relations. These persons did not object to Mohinder Singh as such but only insisted that he should marry Mst. Puro and make the connection legal. This Mohinder Singh was unwil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC888; [1964]4SCR190
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated April 4, 1959, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution. By that petition, the appellant asked for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Board of Revenue, dated September 15, 1956, by which the right of the Municipal Committee, Rajnandgaon, to levy octroi from the appellant was recognised, and for a mandamus, directing the Committee not to realise octroi from the appellant, in the following circumstances : The appellant, Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Ltd., Rajnandgaon, is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and carries on business of manufacturing textiles as Rajnandgaon with its head office at Calcutta. Rajnandgaon was the capital of the former State of Nandgaon in the Eastern States Agency Group before it merged with the State of Madhya Pradesh. A mill called the Central Provinces Mills Ltd., was establ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]33CompCas1057(SC); [1964]4SCR99
Sinha, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred to the Special Bench by the Constitution Bench before which these cases came up for hearing : (1) whether the State Trading Corporation, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is a citizen within the meaning of Art. 19 of the Constitution and can ask for the enforcement of fundamental rights granted to citizens under the said article; and (2) whether the State Trading Corporation is, notwithstanding the formality of incorporation under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, in substance a department and organ of the Government of India with the entirety of its capital contributed by Government; and can it claim to enforce fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution against the State as defined in Art. 12 thereof. 2. The questions were raised by way of preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. 3. As the whole case is not before us, it is necessary...
Tag this Judgment!