Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1087; 1971CriLJ933; 1983(13)ELT1443(SC); (1971)1SCC847; [1971]SuppSCR35
Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal by the first accused, on certificate, is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September 26, 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 1967 confirming his conviction and sentence passed against him by the Presidency Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay for offences under Section 120B I.P.C. read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and also under Section 135 of the Customs Act in respect of the articles claimed to have been recovered from his possession.2. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Section 24 of the Evidence Act is a bar to the admissibility in evidence of the statement Ex. T given by the appellant to the Customs Officers on a summons issued to him under Section 108 of the Act.3. The appellant along with six others was charged under the sections mentioned above and after being found guilty was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous impriso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1624; (1971)1SCC785; [1971]SuppSCR20; 1971(III)LC489(SC)
Hegde, J.1. A passenger bus belonging to the appellant while travelling from Ludhiana to Rajkot met with an accident at about 9 a.m. on February 11, 1959. As a result of this accident, two persons namely Bachan Singh and Narinder Nath died on the spot and some others received minor injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased persons applied for compensation before the tribunal appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Their claim was opposed by the appellant as well as by the insurance company. Overruling the objections of the appellant as well as the insurance company, the tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver and therefore the claimants were entitled to compensation. The tribunal computed the compensation due to the legal representatives of Bachan Singh at Rs. 18,000. Out of that sum it determined the compensation due to the widow at Rs. 8,000; Rs. 4,000 to his daughter Harbans Kaur and Rs. 6,000 to his another daughter Balbir Kaur. But as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1334; (1972)4SCC282; 1971(III)LC485(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. These eight appeals (C.A. Nos. 825 to 832 of 1966) by special leave directed against the common order of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Tribunal dated February 25, 1965 raise common questions of fact and are, therefore being disposed of by one common judgment.2. The main question on which the fate of all these appeals depends lies in a very narrow compass and facts relevant for understanding the controversy requiring determination by this Court may be briefly stated. It may be noted that parties figuring as respondent No. 3 in all the special leave applications were tenants of respondents 1 and 2. According to Section 32. Sub-section (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 67 of 1948 (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act), on April 1, 1957 (described in the Tenancy Act as 'the tillers day' every tenant subject to the provisions of the other sub-sections of Section 32 and to the provisions of the next succeeding sections of the Tenancy Act was to be deemed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC719; 1971(III)LC497(SC)
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, J.1. In this appeal, by special leave, on behalf of the appellant-accused, Mr H.C. Gupta, learned counsel, attacks the judgment and order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, dated April 5, 1968, in criminal Second Appeal No. 1 of 1967, confirming the appellant's conviction as well as the sentence imposed on him, for an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC corresponding to Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution was as follows:On July 24, 1959, Balbadar, a constable had gone in search of the appellant to serve a warrant on him. On the way he met another constable Mohd. Umar. Both of them met the accused, who was driving a truck loaded with sleepers. The accused was asked to stop the truck and receive the warrant. The accused refused to stop and increased the speed of the truck. Balbadar got on the foot-board of the truck through the window and Mohd. Umar got on the top of the truck, which was loaded with sleepers. Both these constables...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1041; 1973(0)BLJR132; (1971)1SCC837; [1971]SuppSCR27; 1971(III)LC492(SC)
K.S. Hegde J.1. In these appeals by special leave identical questions of fact and law arise for decision. It would be convenient to set out the material facts before formulating the questions arising for decision. In the State of Gwalior there was a firm known as Chhedilal Chaturbhuj. Chhedilal, the owner of the firm had two sons and one daughter. The genealogy of the family of Chhedilal is as follows: Chhedilal ______________________________|_____________________________________ | | | Baldev Prasad Chhaturbhuj Parvati | _____________________|___________________ (daughter) Bulak Chand | | | married to | Jwalaprasad Suta Rajabett Manorthilal Mst. Pattobai (daughter) | (widow) died | | in 1953. Kanialal | ________________________________________________________| | | | | Karnimal Harala@ Raggamal Pannalal alias Kannimal Hariji | | Ganeshilal Lakshmichand | Saraswatibai | (widow) _______________________________________| | | | | | | Balkishan Kishanlal Phoolchand Poonamchand | (minor) (Res....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2092; (1972)4SCC246
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff, on certificate, is directed against the decree and judgment dated January 14, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in A. S. No. 655 of 1961 reversing the decree of the trial court and dismissing the appellant's suit for specific performance.2. The deceased first defendant had obtained from her father under a Stridhanakuri Ex.P. 2 dated July 14, 1906 a parcel of land bearing survey No. 8583A/2 of Quilon village of an extent of 13.625 cents.3. The first defendant had put up shops on a part of the land and was enjoying the property. She had become liable to pay certain decree debts under the decree evidenced by Exs. P. 18 and P. 19 dated March 30, 1954 and August 22, 1955 respectively. To discharge these decree debts the first defendant had usufructuarily mortgaged under Ex.P. 16 dated January 8, 1957 the properties obtained by her under Ex.P. 2. At this stage It may be mentioned that in Ex.P. 16 the first defendant had referred to her having...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1920; (1972)4SCC188; [1971]SuppSCR6
Shah, J.1. The appellant was appointed on April 10, 1949, Head Mistress of St. Aloysius Higher Elementary School, Urva, then in State of Madras. On June 1, 1955, the Manager of the School reduced her to the post of an Assistant Teacher. Her appeal to the District Educational Officer, South Kanara, against the action of the Manager was rejected. In second appeal, the Divisional Inspector of Schools, Coimbatore, by order dated July 5, 1956, allowed the appeal and directed the District Educational Officer to issue instructions to the Management of the School to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress. But no effect was given to that order by the Management.2. On June 26, 1957, the appellant filed the suit out of which this appeal arises claiming a mandatory injunction directing the Management of the School to reinstate her to the post of Head Mistress and damages for loss resulting from the wrongful action of the Management.3. It was the appellant's case that the school was receiving gra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1354; (1971)1SCC653; [1971]3SCR971; 1971(III)LC479(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this appeal, by special leave, the appellant accused challenges the judgment and order dated February 8, 1968, of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No. 237 of 1967, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against him for an offence under Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).2. The appellant was at the relevant period a constable having roll number 857. He was originally recruited in 1950 to the police service in the composite Punjab State; and on the formation of the State of Haryana, he was allotted to Haryana. The appellant was posted to do duty at the police lines, Karnal, before November 25, 1963. It was reported by the Lines Officer on November 25, 1963 that when roll-call was taken on the evening of that day at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant was found absent. The report also refers to the absence of certain other police officers, with whom we are not concerned. The judicial magistrate, Karna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2097; (1972)4SCC158; 1971(III)LC458(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, arises out of proceedings Under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and concerns a tank fishery known as 'Napukar' situate in Mauza Kandi, District Murshidabad.2. The tank is the absolute debuttar property of the deity known as Iswar Sri Sri Saradia Thakurani, of whom the respondents are and have at all material times been the shebaits. The last District settlement Record recorded the interest of the deity in the said tank and described it as a rent free tenure. The maintenance of the deity and expenses connected with her seba nuia are met from the income and usufruct of the tank. The Revisional Record of Right under the Act also described the tank as the absolute debuttar property of the deity. But the entry also mentioned that one Kumarish Chandra Saba and Aswini Kumar Saba were the tenants of the tank paying an annual rent of Rs. 63/-. A receipt issued by the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC410; 1971(III)LC476(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave of Dattajirao Patil, who at the material time was the Circle Inspector of the Up Ghat Circle comprised in Bavada Mahal in Kolhapur District, from the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding his conviction and sentence by the Special Judge on various charges which will be presently noticed.2. Four persons, namely, the appellant, H.G. Kadam the Talathi, N.R. Chaugule the Round Forest Officer and R.S. Bhambure the Forest Contractor, were tried on charges of conspiracy Under Section 120B read with Sections 167, 218 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 The last two were charged as abettors of the offence of conspiracy and there was also an alternative charge against them of the substantive offence Under Section 5(1)(d) of the Corruption Act. The Special Judge acquitted all the accused persons of the charge of conspiracy. He convicted the appellant and Kadam of the offences Under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!