Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC930; 1971(III)LC134(SC)
S.M. Sikri, J.1. In this appeal special leave was limited to the question of sentence only.2. The appellant was convicted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, for rash and negligent driving, and sentenced to eighteen months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- Under Section 304-A I.P.C., in default R.I. for three months; 3 months R.I. & a fine of Rs. 250/- Under Section 337, I.P.C., in default R.I. for 6 weeks, and 3 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in default R.I. for 3 weeks. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The High Court, on appeal, upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate.3. The High Court found that the appellant was drunk on that night and he was driving the car rashly and negligently at an excessively high speed4. The learned Counsel contends that the heavy sentence has been imposed on the appellant because he was found to have been drunk on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1217; (1970)3SCC525; [1971]3SCR275
V. Bhargava, J.1. Abdul Ghani has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging that his detention in jail is illegal. He has been detained in pursuance of an order passed by the District Magistrate of Poonch in the State of Jammu & Kashmir under Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). That order is reproduced below:Whereas, I, Syed Mohammad Shaffi Andrabi, IAS, District Magistrate, Poonch am satisfied that with a view to preventing Abdul Gani s/o Asdha Caste Rather Kashmiri Muslim r/o Chohana P/S Surankote District, Poonch, from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary so to do.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir. Preventive Detention Act, 1964, I, Syed Mohd. Shaffi Andrabi, IAS, District Magistrate. Poonch, hereby direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC896b
V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.1. By Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 944 of 1987 the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to revive a contempt petition which had been previously withdrawn by him on December 12, 1986. It is necessary to set out the previous history of these proceedings in order to understand the factual background against which the said prayer has been made.2. The petitioner is the Secretary of an association of individuals called the “Conscientious Group”. He filed Contempt Petition No. 4210 of 1986 alleging that the conduct of the first respondent in making certain adverse comments about the Judges who delivered the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 860 of 1986 (National Anthem case1) constitutes criminal contempt and that the first respondent as well as Respondents 2 to 5 who were responsible for publishing the said statement in certain newspapers should be punished by taking action against them under Section 15 of the Contempt of Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1777; (1970)3SCC567; [1971]3SCR267
A.N. Hegde, J.1. On September 12, 1963, the Government of Punjab passed the following order: Subject:Reservation for the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in promotion cases.Sir,I am directed to refer you to the subject noted above and to say that at present reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes is applicable to new appointments and not to promotions which are governed by consideration of merit and seniority alone. Since those castes/classes are poorly represented in various services in the upper grades under the State Govt. it has been under the active consideration of Government that some reservation in higher grade posts as well should be made for them. It has now been decided that except in the case of All India Services 10 per cent of the higher posts to be filled by promotion should be reserved for the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (9 per cent for the members of Scheduled...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC776; (1970)3SCC350; 1971(III)LC132(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. Raja Bahadur Harihar Prasad Narain Singh hereinafter called 'the Raja' settled in 1936 an area of 15 bighas of land in village Nanour Tauzi Nos. 11021 and 11163 out of his joint family estate upon Ambica Prasad and Harihar Prasad--hereinafter called 'respondents 1 and 2'. The Annual Jama of the land was Rs. 15/-. The appellant who is the son of the Raja filed in 1942 a suit for partition of the joint family estate. The suit was compromised. The appellant claims that the land settled upon respondents 1 and 2 were allotted to his share by that compromise. In 1946 the appellant dispossessed respondents 1 and 2 from the land settled upon them. Respondents 1 and 2 commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Patna, against the appellant and his brother for a decree for possession of the land and for mesne profits. The appellant by his written statement denied the settlement and set up the plea by respondents 1 and 2, that he and the members of his family were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971(22)FLR109]; (1971)3SCC802
Shah, C.J.1. The appellant who was employed as a forest ranger by the State of Madhya Pradesh was on October 21, 1964 ordered to be suspended for certain alleged dereliction of duty. A charge-sheet along with a statement of the charge was supplied to him on the same day and he was called upon to appear before an Enquiry Officer. The appellant made representations to the Government and to the enquiry officer that he was not being paid subsistence allowance and on that account he was unable to appear at the place of enquiry which was five hundred miles away from the place where he was residing The enquiry officer proceeded to hold and enquiry ex parte. He re-ported his findings to the appointing authority. The appointing authority accepted the report and required the appellant to show cause why he should not he dismissed from service. The appellant's re-quest to grant a personal hearing was rejected and an order dismissing the appellant from service was passed. The appellant then submitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1213; 1971CriLJ1059; (1970)3SCC937
V. Bhargava, J.1. The appellant has come up in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding his conviction by Sessions Judge of Karnal, with some modifications in the offences and the sentences. The Sessions Judge had convicted Antu appellant under Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to death, six years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively for the three offences. The High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 and the sentence of death. The conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 was altered to one under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. but the sentence was maintained The conviction for the offence under Section 148 was set aside.2. The prosecution case was that there were disputes going on about land in Killas Nos. 10 and 11 of rectangle No. 15 in the revenue estate of village Mangna, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC856; (1970)3SCC558; [1971]3SCR257
J.C. Shah, J.1. In compliance with our order dated March 13, 1970 the High Court issued a notice to Shukla. Shukla submitted his reply contending, inter alia, that he did not publish or cause to be published the offending statements in the newspaper Mahakoshal as alleged by Sharma. In paragraph 1(ii) he submitted that:He learnt about their publication only after and during the pendency of the election petition for declaration of the election of Shri D.P. Mishra as void. The person in sole charge of the newspaper was Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' whose name has been printed as the Editor. The declaration under Rule 8, Form VI prescribed under the Press and Registration of Books Act (No. XXV of 1867) for the year 1963 shows that the said Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' and not the opposite party (Shukla) was the editor at the material time.... At the time of his appointment the said Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' had insisted that there would be no interference by the opposite p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC778; 1971(0)BLJR1034; 1971CriLJ654; 1971MhLJ625(SC); (1970)3SCC533; [1971]3SCR251
S.M. Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, allowing the appeal of the State and convicting the appellant for having committed an offence punishable under Section 435, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year. The only point involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant was a person of unsound mind within Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code at the time of the incident. The Magistrate held that he was not liable to punishment as he was insane at that time and did not know that he was doing anything wrong or anything contrary to law. The High Court, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant did not fall within the exception created by Section 84, I.P.C.2. It is now well-settled that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC814; 1971(III)LC131(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J 1. This is a defendant's appeal by special leave. The suit from which this appeal arises is one for damages. The plaintiffs' case is that they are the owners of a plot named 'Badi Takia'. On 27-2-1959 defendants Nos. 3 and 4 brought a Tazia from their house and kept the same in a portion of Badi Takia (the place where they kept the Tazia is shown in the plan produced into Court). Despite the plaintiffs' protest the defendants did not remove the Tazia Hence the plaintiffs were constrained to bring the suit claiming damages. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title to Badi Takia. Their case was that Badi Takia was a wakf property; the plaintiffs were in possession of the same in their capacity as Mutawallis. Hence the . defendants had a right to place the Tazia Two questions arose for decision before the trial Courts. They are (1) whether the plaintiffs have title to Badi Takia and (2) if they were the owners of the property, whether there has been a wakf of Badi Takia o...
Tag this Judgment!