Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1045; (1970)3SCC119; [1971]2SCR522
Hegde, J.1. On June 24, 1959, the Deputy Commissioner Santal Parganas caused a notice dated June 20, 1959 published in the Bihar Gazette in accordance with the provisions of Rule 67 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, of the availability for regrant of mining rights in respect of fireclay over the whole of village Palasthali No. 39, situate in Thana Nala, Block Kasta, Sub-Division Jamtara in the District of Santal Parganas. He announced in that notice that the said area will be available for regrant with effect from August 1, 1959 and invited applications for grant of mining lease in respect of that area in accordance with the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. The appellant, a partnership firm applied for that lease on June 24, 1959 itself. Thereafter other persons including the 5th respondent Nankhu Singh also applied for obtaining the lease in question. The State Government of Bihar granted the lease to the appellant on March 31, 1962. In pursuance of that grant a writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC193
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the decision of the High Court of Mysore in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1966 on its file wherein the High Court reversed the order of acquittal of the appellant under Sections 409 and 467, I.P.C. entered in by the trial court convicted him of those offences and sentenced him to suffer 18 months rigorous imprisonment under each of those charges. But the two sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. In December 1962, the appellant was a school teacher as well as branch post-master at Dadighaita village of Channarayapatna Taluk. The prosecution case is : That P.W.8 who hails from Dadighatta but working as a Jutka driver in Bombay sent on December 20, 1962 a sum of Rs. 60/- through an insured cover to his father, P.W 10. That cover was received at Dadighatta on the 24th of that month but the appellant instead of delivering the same to P.W.10 misappropriated the amount placed in that cover and sent back the acknowledgement s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)2SCC866; [1971]2SCR529
1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated March 28, 1968 summarily dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay for offences under Sections 326 and 324, I.P.C. The High Court disposed of his appeal with one word "dismissed".2. At the outset we must point out that on reading the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the memorandum of the grounds of appeal in the High Court we felt that the summary dismissal of the appeal by the High Court with one word "dismissed" without indicating its views on the points raised in the appeal which clearly appears to us to be arguable was not right. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that when an appeal to the High Court under the Cr. PC raises some arguable points the High Court would be well advised to give some indication of the reasons for its view while repelling those points. Without having the benefit of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC197
S.M. SIKRI, J.1.This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court for the State of Punjab and Haryana accepting the State appeal and convicting the present appellants under Section 326, read with Section 34 and under Section 325, read with Section 34 IPC The three appellants had purchased about 16 acres of agricultural land from Joginder Kaur and Lakhwinder Kaur in the area of Village Hasirowwala. Mohinder Singh, PW 1 and Phuman Singh, PW 8, were in possession and instituted a suit for presumption on the ground that the land was comprised in their tenancy. This suit was pending when this occurrence took place.2. Six persons were sent up by the Sultanpur Lodhi Police to stand their trial under Sections 324, 325 and 326, read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the six accused. The State filed an appeal against three accused appellants before us, which, as we have already stated, was accepted by the High Court.3. In brief, the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1283; 1971CriLJ1081; (1970)3SCC82; [1971]2SCR507
Dua, J.1. A complaint under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 dated 24th February, 1964 was presented by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi in the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras against (1) K.T. Kosalram, Director-in-charge of Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd., Madras, (2) K.T. Janakiram, Director, Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd., (3) K. Natarajan, Manager, Messrs Mohan Ram Press, Madras, (4) Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd., Madras, (5) Sri T.N. Ramachandran son of S. Natesa Iyer, Madras and (6) T. Natarajan, Manager, Messrs Dina Seithi Ltd., Madras. According to the broad allegations in the complaint, on November 28, 1959 accused No. 4 (hereafter called the Company) was registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as a public limited company with the Registrar of Companies, Madras. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are brothers were both directors of the Company, accused No. 1 being the Director-in-charge attending to its day to day management and administration. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)2SCC908; [1971]2SCR503
Hidayatullah, C.J.1. The petitioner Rohlua has applied for his release by the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. Previously he had applied to the High Court of Assam & Nagaland (Misc. Criminal Case No. 506 of 1969) but his petition was dismissed. The facts are as follows :2. The petitioner is admittedly an inhabitant of Bakupi in the Mizo District. He was arrested by the Armed Forces under Section 4(c) of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958. He was handed over to the Civil Authorities on March 2, 1968. Since then two criminal cases have been started against him on November 10, 1969 and February 26, 1970. They cover a wide range of offences under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, the Arms Act, several sections of the Indian Penal Code, etc. The cases are pending against him.3. The petitioner's complaint is that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest and detention, that no warrant was shown to him and that he was denied the right of making rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)1SCC34; [1971]2SCR497
Shah, J.1. Bhajan Lal was the owner of land measuring 21 bighas 2 biswas and bearing Khasra Nos. 11/12, 18, 20 and 43 in village Sukhchen. Shadi was the tenant of the land for agricultural use. Alleging that Shadi had failed to pay the rent due by him for the period Kharif Season 1957 to Rabi Season 1960, Bhajan Lal applied under Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, to the Assistant Collector for an order in ejectment against Shadi. The application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector and that order was confirmed in appeal by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner set aside the order and remanded the case for a fresh decision by order dated January 8, 1962.2. There was yet another proceeding regarding the same lands. On February 20, 1961 Shadi applied to the Assistant Collector to purchase the lands under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Assistant Collector rejected the application. The Collector confirmed that order. By ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC911
I.D. Dua, J.1. The following 19 accused persons were tried jointly in the court of the Sessions Judge, Sholapur on 16 charges:1. Ranga Bapu Dhere age 46, occupation labourer, residing at Ropale, Taluka Madha.2. Shankar Kalyan Kale, age 27-28, Occupation agriculture, residing at Ropale, Taluka Madha.3. Govardhan Rangnath Surve, age 27, occupation agriculture, residing at Bevi, Taluka Madha.4. Mohan Kalyan Kale, age 19, occupation agriculture, residing at Ropale, Taluka Madha.5. Keshinath Ranga Kale, age 20, occupation agriculture, residing at Ropale, Taluka Madha.6. Kalyan' Baji Kale, age 55, occupation agriculture, residing at Ropale, Taluka Madha.7. Baburao Bajirao Patil, age 46, occupation agriculture, residing at Angar, taluka Mohol.8. Bhagwant alias Rajabhau Manohar Nimbalkar, age, 28, occupation Agriculture, residing at Angar, Taluka Mohol.9. Allauddin Ismail Shaikh, age 28, occupation agriculture, residing at Angar, Taluka Mohol.10. Papa Abdul Mujawar, age 22, occupation Taxi dri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC460; 1971CriLJ422; (1970)3SCC474; 1971(III)LC6(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellants and one Boya Ranudu were charged with the murders of Boya Thiamiah and Boya Sanjeevu as well as some other lesser offences at about 8 a.m. on September 8, 1964 near mile stone No. 81/2 on the Dharmavaram-Kalyandurg road. They were tried by the learned District Judge, Anantapur for those offences. The learned District Judge disbelieving the witnesses who spoke to the incident viz. P.Ws. 1 to 3 acquitted all the accused. As against that decision of the learned District Judge, the State went up in appeal to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court accepted the appeal so far as the appellants (Accused 1 to 5) are concerned and convicted them under various charges including one Under Section 302/149, I.P.C. for which offence all of them were sentenced for imprisonment for life It is not necessary to refer to the other charges because those charges are interwoven with the offence of murder. No arguments were addressed to us about those charges separate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1292; [1971]41CompCas21(SC); (1970)3SCC900; [1971]2SCR476
Shah, J.1. Mohammed Ibrahim (hereinafter called 'the plaintiff') instituted an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore for a decree in ejectment in respect of land occupied by the Luxmi Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. as his tenant. The suit was decreed on October 1, 1953. Before the decree was passed, the Company had executed on January 31, 1951 a deed in favour of Bansidhar mortgaging its fixed assets for securing repayment of Rs. 1,25,000/-. After the decree of the Trial Court, the Company executed on January 21, 1954 a second deed also in favour of Bansidhar mortgaging the fixed assets for repayment of an additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The decree of the Subordinate Judge in the plaintiffs suit was confirmed on August 4, 1954. Against that decree the Company and Bansidhar preferred second appeal No. 1380 of 1954 to the High Court of Calcutta. Bansidhar also filed a suit in the High Court of Calcutta on its original side to enforce the two mortgages in his favour and o...
Tag this Judgment!