Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC781; 1971CriLJ657; (1970)3SCC507; [1971]2SCR908
I.D. Dua, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Mysore High Court on appeal setting aside in part the order of the appellant's acquittal by a Second Class Magistrate and convicting him under Rule 126-P (2) of the Defence of India Rules as amended in 1963 hereafter called the Rules -- and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The order of the trial Court acquitting him of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was upheld.2. The appellant alighted from a service plane at H.A.L. Aerodrome, Bangalore on November 16, 1963 at about 12.45 in the afternoon, E.R. Fariman, Inspector, C.I.D. had prior incriminating information about the arrival of a person whose description seemed to tally with that of the appellant. The Inspector and his staff who were on the look out waited for the appellant to take his baggage from the baggage counter. As soon as the appellant took delivery of a plastic bag and a hold-all the Inspector a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC757; 1971CriLJ649; (1970)3SCC493; 1971(III)LC117(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this appeal by special leave we are only concerned with the question of sentence imposed on appellants 1, 2 and 3 by the High Court. They are Ram Narain son of Manni Lal Ahir, Babulal son of Bhikhari Ahir and Nankau son of Manni Lal. Special leave was declined to the other convicts who had applied along with the present appellants.2. Eight persons were tried in the Court of the 1st Temporary Sessions Judge, Kanpur for the murder of one Bitta. The three appellants with whom we are now concerned were alleged to have been armed respectively with deadly weapons like gandasa, sword and ballam. They were charged Under Section 148, I.P.C. with having formed an unlawful assembly along with the five co-accused with the common object of committing the murder of the deceased. They were further charged Under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. for committing the said murder.3. At the trial evidence was led to show that five accused persons had direct enmity with the decease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC361; (1970)3SCC891; 1971(III)LC109(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal by special leave from a suit for partition in a Muslim family. The appellant was the first defendant in that suit The first respondent brought the suit for partition claiming 14/88 share in the properties detailed in the plaint schedules. The parties to the suit are the heirs of one Sanaullah. The family genealogy is given in the plaint. The correctness of that genealogy is not disputed. It was alleged in the plaint that the properties detailed in the plaint schedules are the joint properties of the parties to the suit. The appellant contented the suit. He contended that his father Sanaullah had three pharmacies sometime before his death he gifted to each one of his three sons one pharmacy. The pharmacy which was originally known as Darul Adviya was gifted to him; therefore he is the exclusive owner of that pharmacy. He further contended that some of the other items shown in the plaint schedules are his self acquisitions and hence they are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC359; [1971(22)FLR70]; (1970)3SCC870
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal is founded on a certificate granted by the High Court of Assam and Nagaland against its order of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The appellant joined service in the North-East Frontier Railway as a Depot clerk in 1942 and was confirmed and made permanent in that post on August 15, 1947. He was promoted to the post of a Ward Keeper on June 4, 1949 in the Depot Wing of the Controller of Stores.3. During the last World War, the said Railway organised temporarily a Food Supply Organisation where in a number of persons, including respondents 4 to 8, were appointed. Respondent 4 was appointed as a sales man in the said organisation in 1944 and was confirmed with effect from August 15, 1947 under the Deputy Traffic Superintendent, Lumding. Respondent 5 was appointed a clerk in 1943 and was confirmed in the Head Office Wing of the Controller of Stores Department in 1944. Respondent 6 was appointed in 1943 and was confirmed in his post unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC363; 1971CriLJ305; (1970)3SCC518; [1971]2SCR917
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad confirming conviction of the two appellants by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Panel Code. Appellant Jadunath Singh was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge and appellant Girand Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. In order to appreciate the paints raised before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to state a few facts. It is alleged against the appellants that on February 26, 1968, at about 7.30 a.m., in furtherance of their common intention, they murdered one Ram Swarup Pandey by repeatedly stabbing him to death, when he was passing on the Grand Trunk road in the town of Bewar to catch a truck. As many as 34 injuries were found on the deceased at the post-mortem conducted on his body on the same day at about 3 p.m.3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows : It is common ground that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2519; 1971CriLJ1746; (1970)3SCC496; 1971(III)LC98(SC)
S.M. Sikri, J.1. In this appeal special leave was granted only on the question of sentence as far as the appellant, Mohan Singh, is concerned. The facts relevant for determining this question are as follows.2 Six accused, Karnail Singh, Mohan Singh, Sarup Singh, Mangal Singh, Chanan Singh and Avtar Singh, were tried on charges Under Sections 302, 302/149 148, 324/140, Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution was that on June 7, 1968, at 9.30 a.m. in village Chutala, one Gian Singh was murdered. Among the accused, it was alleged, Avtar Singh was armed with a gun, Karnail Singh, Chanan Singh and Mangal Singh were armed with Kirpans, Mohan Singh was armed with a spear and Sarup Singh was armed with a Gandasi. The deceased accompanied by Gurpal Singh and his father Pritam Singh, and their brother-in-law Ajit Singh left their house for Taran Taran. When they reached near the Haveli of the accused Mangal Singh, all the accused came out of the Haveli. Avtar Singh fired two shots from hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC356; 1971CriLJ290; (1970)3SCC933; 1971(III)LC106(SC)
V. Bhargava, J.1. Hira Lal appellant was tried by the special Judge of Rohtak for an offence punishable Under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code on the charge that he offered to pay a sum of Rs. 1100/- to Kundan Lal Sahwney, Station House Officer, Police Station City Rohtak for allowing him & his associates to carry on Satta gambling. The prosecution case was that, on 9th July, 1967 at 9. 45 a.m. the appellant approached Sub-Inspector Kundan Lal at the Police Station, told him that he was carrying on Khaiwali Satta in association with Mangtu, Omi and Jagga and offered to pay him a sum of Rs. 1100/- per mensem as illegal gratification, provided Kundan Lal promised to shield him and his associates in these gambling activities Kundan Lal kept quiet and the appellant left promising to come to the police station at 3 p m. to give the sum of Rs. 1100/-. According to Kundan Lal he made an entry of this incident in the daily diary of the police station and also took into confidence the Supe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC794; 1971(III)LC543(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this appeal on certificate issued by the Patna High Court, the question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants)are entitled to claim restitution Under Section 144 of the CPC as against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) in view of the estate in which the suit lands are situated having vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Lands Reform Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The State of Bihar is the 9th respondent in this appeal.2. We may now refer to the circumstances under which the claim for restitution was made by the defendants. The plaintiffs' predecessors in title had executed a mortgage in favour of the defendants' predecessors in title on July 3, 1906 in respect of an extent of lands measuring 10 24 acres. The plaintiffs redeemed the mortgage on April 5, 1943 Notwithstanding the redemption of the mortgage, the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)IILLJ686SC; (1970)3SCC338; [1971]2SCR890; 1971(2)SLJ71(SC)
Vakttalingam, J.1. The sole point that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the order dated April 26, 1964 passed by the Governor of Punjab reverting the appellant from the Punjab Education Service Class I (officiating service) to the Punjab Education Service Class II with immediate effect, amounts to 'reduction in rank' attracting the applicability of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.2. The appellant when this order was passed was Principal, Government College, Muktsar, and on reversion he was posted as Deputy Inspector of Schools, Agriculture, Chandigarh. The learned Single Judge, who heard Civil Writ No. 1506 of 1964 filed by the appellant to quash the said order, held by his judgment dated September 9, 1965 that the order amounts to 'reduction in rank' of the appellant and quashed the same. On appeal by the State of Punjab and two other officers, the Division Bench by its order dated July 21, 1966 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 346 of 1965 set aside t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC460; 1971(III)LC100(SC)
V. Bhargava, J.1. Appellants Bhusai alias Mohammad Mian and Mohammad Ibrahim were prosecuted for an offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Abdul Haq Ansari on the night between 9th and 10th of August, 1965. The Sessions Judge, who tried the appellants, acquitted both of them. The State filed an appeal in the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court disagreed with the Sessions Judge, allowed the State appeal, and convicted both the appellants. Bhusai was sentenced to death Under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., while Mohammad Ibrahim was sentenced to imprisonment for life Under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The High Court granted a certificate to Bhusai under Article 134(1)(a) of the Constitution and to Mohammad Ibrahim under Article 134(1)(c), This appeal has been filed by the two appellants on the basis of these certificates.2. The prosecution case was that appellant Mohammad Ibrahim was living in a h...
Tag this Judgment!