Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC286; 1967(0)BLJR422; 1967CriLJ287; 1967MhLJ741(SC); [1966]SuppSCR477
Ramaswami, J. 1. The appellants - Pampapathy and Shekarappa were tried in the Court of Sessions at Chitradurga for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 302 read with s. 149 and s. 325 read with s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted of all the offences other than under s. 307 and s. 302 read with s. 149, Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellants, along with others, some of whom were dismissed workers of Devangiri Cotton Mills and Shri Ganeshar Textiles Mills and some of whom were office bearers and members of the Devangiri Cotton Mills Employees' Association and Shri Ganeshar Textiles Mills Workers Union, conspired with the common object of committing murder and other offences with a view to strengthen their Associations and to weaken the rival Unions which had the sympathy of the Mill Managements. It was alleged that they intended to create fear in the mind of the Management of the Mills in order to gain their object of getting more bonus ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC276; 1967CriLJ285; [1966]SuppSCR473
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in a Criminal Revision filed by M/s. Azad Bharat Finance Company, one of the respondents in this appeal. The revision arose out of the following facts. On May 3, 1961, truck No. M.P.E. 1548, while it was parked at the bus-station, Guna, was searched by the Excise Sub-Inspector and he found contraband opium weighing about three seers in it. Five persons were challanced for the alleged illegal possession of contraband opium and for its transport, under Sections 9A and 9B of the Opium Act (I of 1878) as modified by the Opium (Madhya Bharat Amendment) Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Madhya Bharat Act. Harbhajan Singh, one of the accused, is alleged to have absconded, and, therefore, he was tried separately later on. The Additional District Magistrate, Guna, convicted three persons and acquitted one person. Regarding the truck, he ordered that the final order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC483; 1967CriLJ520; [1966]SuppSCR464
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated February 8, 1966 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 266 of 1965 refusing to grant a writ in the nature of habeas corpus ordering the release of the appellant, Jaichand Lal Sethia from detention under an order passed by the Government of West Bengal under r. 30 of Defence of India Rules. 2. After the conclusion of arguments in this case on May 3, 1966 we express the view that this appeal should be dismissed and the reasons will be stated later. We now proceed to express those reasons. 3. The case of the appellant is that he was carrying on business of purchasing and selling goods like cloves, cinnamon, dye-stuff etc. in the city of Calcutta. In the month of January, 1963 the appellant had some trouble with the place of Burrabazar, P.S. in Calcutta, particularly with the Sub-Inspector Kalyan Dutt, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. The appellant also said that he incurred the di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC383; [1966]62ITR323(SC); [1966]SuppSCR453
Sikri, J. 1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in two cases referred to it by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) hereinafter called the Act). One of the references (Income Tax Reference No. 20 of 1959) was made at the instance of M/s. Fatehchand Murlidhar, and the other (Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 959) was made at the instance of Shri Murlidhar Himatsingka. In the former reference the question referred was 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of Murlidhar Himatsingka for his share in the firm of Messrs. Basantlal Ghanshyamdas for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54 was rightly excluded from the income of the applicant firm'. In the latter reference the question referred was 'whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the income of Murlidhar Himatsingka for his share in the firm of Messrs. Basantlal Ghans...
Tag this Judgment!