Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC432; 1971(III)LC387(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. This appeal (Crl. A. No. 201 of 1966) along with three other appeals (including an appeal by the State against the acquittal of two accused persons) was disposed of by us on September 28, 1970. A review petition under O XL of the Supreme Court Rules (Review Petition No. 46 of 1970) was later presented on behalf of the appellant Baburao Bajirao Patil (accused No. 7 in the trial Court) for re-hearing this appeal so far as he is concerned on the ground that Mr. Frank Anthony, his learned Counsel was under the impression at the time of hearing that he was not being called upon to reply to the arguments of the Counsel for the State so far as accused No. 7 is concerned and that for this reason he did not address any arguments in reply On January 11, 1971 after hearing both sides we considered it proper to permit Mr. Anthony to reply to the arguments of the State Counsel Mr. Anthony then addressed us on the case against the appellant, Baburao Bajirao Patil on January 29, 1971 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC436
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, J.1. In these appeals by special leave, the appellants who are Accused 2 to 4, challenge the judgment, dated April 24, 1968, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, confirming their conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The appellants, alongwith one Bamdeo were charged and tried under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Surajkunwar on the morning of August 24, 1967, in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution case was briefly as follows:The deceased Surajkunwar was the widow of one Durjan, brother of Bamdeo, Accused 1. Accused 2 Yudhishtir is the son of Bamdeo. Rajkumar and Shivkumar Accused 3 and 4 are the nephews of Bamdeo. On the death of Durjan, Surajkunwar had inherited as her husband's heir about 22 acres of land. Surajkunwar used to live in the house of Bamdeo, but as differences arose between Accused 1 and Surajkunwar, she was h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2164; (1971)1SCC712
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The three Petitioners who are residents of Amritsar have filed this Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act 10 of 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') as being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(f) & (g) and 31(2) of the Constitution of India.2. The first Petitioner carries on a Bakery business in a shop in Bazar Jallianwala near Chowk Phowara of which he is a tenant. The second Petitioner is the owner of a building consisting of a number of shops situated in Bazar Bikanarian while the third Petitioner is a tenant in occupation of a residential house situated in Bazar Sodhian. On 26th June 1962 the State Govt. declared by a Notification under Section 2(d) of the Act the entire area within the walled city of Amritsar to be a damaged area. In pursuance of the said Notification a number of schemes were formulated by the Improvement Trust of Amritsar. Two of such Schemes with which the Petitioners are conce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2162; (1971)3SCC189; [1971]3SCR748; 1971(III)LC376(SC)
S.M. Sikri, CJ.1. We disposed of Criminal Appeals Nos. 211 and 212 of 1959 by our judgment dated August 18, 1970, whereby the appeals of Girdharilal Gupta, and Bhagwandeo Tewari against their convictions were dismissed. Girdharilal Gupta put in this review petition stating that the counsel had omitted to bring to our notice the provisions of Section 23C(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947-hereinafter referred to as the Act-which has a vital bearing on-the case. The judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1959 has, therefore, been re-opened. We may mention that Bhagwandeo Tiwari has not filed a review petition against his conviction, upheld by this Court.2. Mr. Daphtary contends that on the facts, as found by us, the appellant, Girdhari Lal Gupta, does not come within the purview of Section 23C(1) or Section 23C(2) of the Act. Sections 23C(1) and 23C(2) read as follows :23C. (1) If the person committing a contravention is a company, every person who, at the time the contraven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2171; [1971(22)FLR217]; 1971LabIC1235; (1971)ILLJ233SC; (1971)1SCC742; [1971]3SCR774
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this appeal special leave was limited to the question whether relief by way of payment of compensation should not be substituted for the relief by way of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court to the workman, H.P. Bhagavati, Store Clerk.2. The Panitole Tea Estate belongs to the Jokai (Assam) Tea Co., Ltd., Panitole. Depot Line was one of the Out Gardens under this Tea Estate and it had a separate godown. One B.K. Borgohain, a part-time clerk, was in charge of this godown. Ammonia sulphate fertilizer was stored in this godown, 970 bags having been received there between December 12, 1960 and January 5, 1961. Pursuant to receipt of an anonymous letter that there was pilferage of these bags the stock was checked and 89 bags were found missing. In the course of the domestic enquiry against Borgohain a chit (Ex. 12) was produced by him which suggested H.P. Bhagavati's collusion with Borgohain in this affair. Bhagavati was accordingly also chargesheeted and after domesti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1158; (1971)1SCC707; [1971]3SCR784; 1971(III)LC390(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court arising out of a pre-emption suit only two questions were raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants who were vendees-defendants in he trial court. The suit was instituted by 'the three sons of three vendors who were real brothers, and the two points canvassed in this Court challenge the decisions of the High Court and of the court of the District Judge on issues 6 and 7. Those issues are :6. Is the suit collusive? If so, its effect.7. Is the suit within time ?Both these issues were decided by the trial court against the plaintiffs but the District Judge on appeal reversed the decision of the trial court on both the issues and the High Court on second appeal affirmed the decision of the first appellate court.2. The relevant facts may now be stated in brief. Kartar Singh, Bachan Singh and Sardara Singh, sons of Sohel Singh, claiming to be co-sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC451; 1971(III)LC426(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the State of Madras challenges the judgment and order dated January 8, 1968, of the High Court of Madras, reversing the conviction of the accused, respondent, by the Special Judge and in term acquitting him of the offences Under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. The charge against the appellant was that he as Deputy Tehsildar, Perambalur, accepted a sum of Rs. 50/-as illegal gratification from P.W. 1 Chinnasamy Udayer on 6-4-1965 as a motive of reward for counter-signing fifty ownership certificates issued by the Karnams of Periavadagarai and Vembavoor villages.3. The case for the prosecution in brief was as follows: The accused was at the material time the Deputy Tehsildar, Headquarters at Perambalur. As early as in 1962 P.W. 1 and about 100 other villagers of Perhavadakarai had presented application to the Electrical Supervisor, Krishnapu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2184; (1971)1SCC597; [1971]3SCR734
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate against the judgment dated 15 December, 1965 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appellants' suit and setting aside the decree in favour of the appellant passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 18 October, 1958.2. Shah Abdul Rahim a resident of the city of Hyderabad died on 26 September, 1905 leaving behind him four sons Abdul Hai, Ghulam Nooruddin, Abdul Razak and Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin and two daughters Kamarunnissa Begum and Badiunnissa Begum. Shah Abdul Rahim had large movable and immovable properties. The sons and the daughters entered into two agreements in the month of July, 1908 and appointed arbitrators to partition the Matrooka properties of Syed Shah Abdul Rahim. On 1 August, 1908 the arbitrators made an Award partitioning the properties. On 13 August, 1908 there was a decree in the Darul Khaza Court, Hyderabad confirming the Award of 1 August, 1908. The appellant filed the suit out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1983; 1974CriLJ1383; (1971)3SCC413; 1971(III)LC367(SC)
A.N. Ray J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 26 May, 1970 of the High Court of Delhi, confirming the sentence of death passed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge on a charge Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The charge against the appellant was that on or about 13 Dec. 1968 at about 9.15 p.m. at Ram Nagar, Nai Basti, Delhi, the appellant committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Lachhman Dass and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The prosecution case was that Lachhman Dass son of Raja Ram a young man of about 23 years of age was running a tea shop at Ram Nagar, Nai Basti, Delhi, He had his residence in the same Katra. Adjacent to his shop was the shop of his uncle Bahadur Chand who also resided in that Katra. On 13 December, 1968 at about 9.15 p.m. Om Parkash came to the shop of Lachhman Dass and asked for tea and eggs on credit. Lachhman Dass told Om Parkash that he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC338; 1971(III)LC401(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, on behalf of the first accused, the judgment dated August 3, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1749 of 1966 confirming the appellant's conviction and sentence, is challenged. The appellant, at the relevant time was the Sub-Registrar at Kannad. The appellant along with two others, namely, the clerk accused No. 2, and the peon, accused No. 3, were tried by the Special Judge Aurangabad and convicted of the offences Under Section 161 read with sec 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant was sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused No. 2 was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-Similarly in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous im...
Tag this Judgment!