Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1130; 1971CriLJ842; (1971)2SCC54; [1971]SuppSCR113; 1971(III)LC512(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellant and one R.B. Mathur were tried before the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay under various charges including a charge of conspiracy. Mathur was acquitted and the appeal against his acquittal was unsuccessful. The appellant was also acquitted of all charges excepting a charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For that offence he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The substance of the charge under which he was convicted is that he by utilising his position as a Government servant sent various articles such as Radios, Transistors, Clothes etc., from Goa to Bombay without paying customs duty. He was also held guilty of sending his personal articles in the vehicles engaged by the postal department without paying any charge. The trial court supported its conclusion on a further ground nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC996; (1972)4SCC274
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of a single Judge of the Kerala High Court in a second appeal. Therein the learned Judge allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs, reversed the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court2. In Order to decide the points arising for decision in this appeal, it is necessary to set out in brief the facts of the case. This litigation has a long history. The property concerned in the suit is 99 cents in extent but it contains some buildings. It is situate in a municipal town 08 Kottayam taluk. It appears that the property has now become very valuable This property admittedly at one time belonged to an Ezhava Marumakkathayam Tharwad. Three junior members of that Tharwad sold that property to a third party in 1063 M.E. (Mallayalam Era). Three other junior members of that Tharwad sued for the recovery of that property in 1074 M.E. after setting aside the alienation which accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC998; (1971)1SCC790; [1971]Supp1SCR118; 1971(III)LC508(SC)
Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 30 June, 1966 and 4 and 5 July, 1966 of the High Court at Bombay reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29 October, 1963.2. The only question in this appeal is whether the order of the Government of Bombay dated 8 May, 1962 'repatriating' the appellant from the temporary post of Controller of Foodgrains Department, Bombay to his parent Department of Excise and Prohibition amounted to a reduction in rank in violation of the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution.3. The appellant joined service as Sub-Inspector of Excise in the Excise and Prohibition Department of the Government of Bombay in the year 1938. He was thereafter selected for transfer to the Bombay City Police Department. In 1942 he was sent on 'deputation' to the Civil Supplies Department as an Inspector. He continued to work in that department up to the month of February, 1955. By February, 1955 he had by various promotion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1201; (1971)1SCC757; [1971]SuppSCR63
Dua, J.1. In this appeal on certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India the question raised relate to the liability of auction purchaser of property at court sale for the arrears of municipal taxes due on the date of sale to the municipal corporation of the City of Ahmedabad which dues are a statutory charge on the property sold and of which the purchaser had no actual notice. On the question of constructive notice there is a sharp conflict of judicial decisions in the various High Courts and in the Allahabad High Court itself there have been conflicting expression of opinion. In this Court there being no representation on behalf of the respondent the appeal was heard ex parte.2. The property which is the subject matter of controversy in this litigation originally belonged to one Haji Nur-Mahammad Haji Abdulmian. He apparently ran into financial difficulties in February, 1949, and insolvency proceedings were started against him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1277; 1971CriLJ1075; (1971)1SCC767; [1971]SuppSCR53; 1971(III)LC500(SC)
P. Jagamohan Reddy, J.1. The Appellant Babu Lal Hargovindas carries on business of selling milk in the City of Ahmedabad. On 2-12-1965 at about 8 a.m. the Food Inspector Mangulal C. Mehta visited the Appellant's shop, disclosed his identity and intimated to him that he was purchasing the milk for analysis. Thereafter 700 ML. milk which was being sold as cow's milk was purchased from him. It was divided into 3 parts and poured into three bottles in each of which he added sixteen drops of formalin as preservative. The bottles were then corked, sealed and wrapped and signatures of the Panch one Adambhai Rasulbhai were taken on the seals and wrappers. Of the three bottles that were then sealed one was given to the Appellant, one was kept by the Food Inspector to be produced in the Court as required by the provision of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as it contained total non-fat solids of 7:4% instead of 8:5% 11:30 a.m. to the Chemist Laxmansingh Vaghela who being auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1116; 1971CriLJ828; (1971)3SCC203; 1971(III)LC352(SC); 1971(4)WLN33
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal by the accused, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court dated August 7, 1968 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 1964.2. The appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1963 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ajmer, for an offence Under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing the death of his brother Bajranglal on July 15, 1962. The Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant by his judgment and order dated January 4, 1964. The State filed an appeal before the High Court against the decision of the Sessions Judge. The High Court has set aside the order of acquittal and in turn has convicted the appellant for the offence Under Section 302 I.P.C. and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution was as follows :3. The appellant and his three brothers Bhanwarlal, Ucchablal and Bajranjlal owned jointly 14 bighas of land or joint family property. Bhanwar Lal had died some 15 or 16 years befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1551; (1972)4SCC733
Sikri, C.J.1. We have just delivered judgment in U. N. R. Rao v. Smt. Indira Gandhi, Civil Appl. No. 196 of 1971, D/-17-3-1971 : : AIR1971SC1002 . A similar question arises in this appeal, but with respect to the Chief Minister and the Ministers of the State of Tamil Nadu. The relevant articles are worded similarly. The only difference is that the Governor is not elected but he is appointed by the President under Article 155 of the Constitution and Article 356 of the Constitution makes provisions in case of failure of Constitutional machinery in the State. But when an assembly is dissolved there is no failure of the Constitutional machinery within Article 356. Article 164(2), which provides that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State has to be read in the same manner as we have read Article 75(3). Following our reasoning in that appeal this appeal must fail. In the result the appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1002; (1971)2SCC63; [1971]Supp1SCR46
Sikri, C.J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing Writ Petition No. 63 of 1971 filed by U.N.R. Rao, appellant before us. In this petition the appellant had prayed that a writ of qua warranto be issued to the respondent, Smt. Indira Gandhi, and it be declared that the respondent has no Constitutional authority to hold the office of and to function as Prime Minister of India.2. In brief, the appellant contends that under the Constitution as soon as the House of the People is dissolved under Article 85(2) of the Constitution the Council of Ministers, i.e., the Prime Minister and other Ministers, cease to hold office. According to him this follows plainly from the wording of Article 75(3), which provides that 'the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People'. How can the Council of Ministers be responsible to the House of the People when it has been dissolved under Article 85(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC267
I.D. DUA, J.1. This appeal has been presented to this Court pursuant to a certificate granted by the Patna High Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.2. The appellant, Aditya Kumar Singh, passed the B.Sc., Part I examination of the Bhagalpur University from the I.N.B. College in 1964 with Chemistry, Botany and Zoology as principal subjects and Physics as an extra subject. In 1967 he passed the B.Sc. examination of the Magadh University with Honours in Zoology. Thereafter he applied for admission to the Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi. Along with his application he attached a marks-sheet of the B.Sc., Part I examination of the Bhagalpur University purporting to have been issued to him by that University as also the marks-sheet of B.Sc. (Hons) examination of the Magadh University. In March 1968 he was admitted to the First Year of the MBBS course of that College. On January 21, 1969 the appellant was served with a notice dated January 20, 1969 from the Principal of Rajendra ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1331; (1971)1SCC616; [1971]SuppSCR1; 1971(III)LC482(SC)
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. In this appeal by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 132 of the Constitution a short question as to the interpretation of Clause 4 of Article 164 of the Constitution arises. This question has arisen in connection with the appointment on October, 18, 1970, of Shri Tribhuvan Narain Singh as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. He was not a member of either House of Legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh at the time of his appointment.2. The appellant, who is a rate-Payer of the Lucknow Constituency to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court challenging the appointment of the respondent as Chief Minister. The High Court dismissed the petition but granted a certificate under Article 132 of the Constitution, and the appeal is now before us.3. Article 164(4) reads as follows:164(4) A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State s...
Tag this Judgment!