Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC340; 1966CriLJ305; [1966]1SCR313
Wanchoo, J. 1. These two writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus raise common questions and will be dealt with together. We may set out the facts in one of the petitions (namely Petition 55) in order to highlight the points raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts in the other petition as they are similar except that in the other case the original arrest took place on December 6 instead on December 8. 2. Sahib Singh Dugal, petitioner, was employed in the Posts and Telegraph Directorate of the Central Government. He was arrested on December 8, 1964 and put in jail as an under trial prisoner for an offence under s. 3 of the Official Secrets Act. Various remands were taken up to March 11, 1965 in connection with the criminal case against the petitioner. It appears that besides Dugal, eight other persons were also involved in the case under s. 3 of the Official Secrets Act, including Jagdev Kumar Gupta petitioner in p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC245; [1966]1SCR304
Shah, J.1. Rani Manraj Koer obtained money decrees in two suits Nos. 9 of 1932 and42 of 1932 filed by her in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Lucknow againstNawab Mohammad Ali Khan Qazilbash Zamindar, Aliabad Estate, in Uttar Pradesh.From time to time execution applications were filed by the decree holderagainst the Zamindar, but nothing was recovered. Rani Manraj Koer died onOctober 1, 1941 and the appellant was brought on the record as her heir andlegal representative. Nawab Mohammad Ali Khan Qazilbash also died and fivepersons amongst whom was one Nawab Ali Raza Khan were impleaded as legalrepresentatives in the execution proceedings. 2. In January 1950 Nawab Ali Raza Khan (Talukdar of Aliabad Estate) who wassubstantially the only judgment debtor from whose estate the amounts due wereliable to be recovered, migrated to Pakistan and he was declared an evacueeunder the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance 27 of1949- which was later replaced by the Administ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC197; [1966]1SCR284
The Judgment of Subba Rao and Bachawat, JJ. was delivered by Subba Rao, J. Raghubar Dayal, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.Subba Rao, J.1. These five appeals by special leave were filled against the orders of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay setting aside the order of a single Judge of that Court quashing the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, levying fines on the respondents in lieu of confiscation of consignments of scrap iron exported to foreign countries. As the main point raised in all the appeals is the same, it would be enough if we state the relevant facts in one of the appeals, namely, Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1963, arising out of Misc. Petition No. 86 of 1958.2. Messrs. Shantilal Chhotalal & Co., hereinafter called the firm, are a firm of Importers and Exporters of scrap iron. The said firm obtained an export licence dated November 7, 1956, from the Iron and Steel Controller permitting them to export from the port of Bombay 900 lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC478; [1966]1SCR262
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 60 to 62 and 316 to 320 of 1965. Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders, dated December 10, 1962 and March 18, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 27, 47 & 48 of 1961, and 74 of 1963, 91 of 1960 and 26, 49 & 50 of 1961. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, R. K. P. Shankardass, R. H. Dhebarand R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in all the appeals) A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. Balakrishnan, B. R. Dolia, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramaurthi, for the respondents (in C.As. Nos. 60 to 62 of 1965). Lily Thomas, for respondent (in C. A. No. 316 of 1965). R.R. Dolia, E. C. Agrawala and P. C. Agrawala, for the respondent (in C. As. Nos. 317-320 of 1965). The Judgment of Gajendragadkar C.J., and Wanchoo, Shah and Sikri JJ., was delivered by Wanchoo, J. Mudholkar, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Wanchoo, J. These eight appeals by special leave against the judgment of the Madras High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC356; 1965(0)BLJR905; 1966CriLJ307; [1966]1SCR255
Hidayatullah, J. 1. By an order pronounced on May 7, 1965, we ordered the dismissal of thisappeal but reserved our reasons which we now proceed to give. 2. The five appellants were tried on a complaint by the respondent JanardanPrasad before the Honorary Magistrate, First Class, Jehanabad for offencesunder Sections 420, 468, 406, 465/471, Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted onAugust 31, 1962. The complainant obtained special leave of the High Court atPatna under s. 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and filed an appealagainst their acquittal. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remandedthe case to the District Magistrate of Gaya with a direction that the case beinquired into under Chapter XVIII of the Code from the stage of taking evidenceunder s. 208, with a view to their committal to the Court of Session. Theappellants now appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of theHigh Court. The facts of the prosecution case may now be stated briefly. 3. Janardhan ...
Tag this Judgment!