Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1064; 1971CriLJ927
A.N. Ray, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 5 April, 1968 of the High Court of Gujarat setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad on 21 September, 1965 on a charge for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting the appellants and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life.2. The three appellants Bhika Valu, Dhuna Magna and Valu Vela were the accused in this case. They belonged to the Barwad community of Gundi village of Dholka Taluka, Ahmedabad Rural District. In this village there were two factions one of the Koli Patels and the other of Bharvads. Five or six years prior to the date of occurrence, namely 20 February, 1965, 5 or 6 Bharvads of Gundi village were murdered. Amongst those murdered were Vajakaran Vaha, Ranchhod Valu, Ganda Kama, Deva Kama and Vela Kama. The appellant Bhika Valu is the nephew of Vajakaran Vaha and is brother of Ranchhod Valu both of whom were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2177; (1971)1SCC813; [1971]3SCR929
V. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed by Mohan Lal who purchased the property in dispute from the original owner, Bhiwa, by means of two sale-deeds Exhibits D-1 and D-2 both dated 13th May, 1951. The properties were already mortgaged in favour of the appellant by two earlier mortgage-deeds executed on 23rd March, 1949 and 26th June, 1949 respectively. The plaintiff-respondents claimed that the two sale deeds were collusive transactions between Bhiwa and the appellant and that, in any case, Bhiwa had no right to sell these properties to the appellant, as the respondents had become owners of these properties prior to the execution of the sale-deeds. The four plaintiff-respondents are the daughters of Bhiwa by two wives, one of them being Smt. Hendri. According to their case, Bhiwa sold two of his malik-makbuza fields having an area of 11.33 acres by sale-deed Ext. D-31 to his wife Smt. Mendra and to his nephew. Barshya, each of the vendees getting a half share th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1038; (1971)1SCC667; [1971]3SCR897
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. These appeals are by a certificate under Article 132(c) of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which have by an order of this Court dated 25-8-1969 been consolidated for the purpose of hearing. The short question for determination in these appeals in whether under the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act 5 of 1963 read with Rule 8 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment of Secretary) Rules, the appellant could be discharged from the service of the Board of Education. The appellant was an office Superintendent of the Board constituted under the West Bengal Secondary Education Act 37 of 1950 (hereinafter called 'the 1950 Act'). He was promoted as Assistant Secretary on 12-7-1952, as Deputy Secretary on 18-6-56 and on the lst/8th August 1962 he was appointed as Secretary on probation and confirmed on 1-8-63 by an order dated the 24th August '63. The appellant continued in this o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1033; (1971)1SCC671; [1971]3SCR871
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a writ petition wherein the appellants challenged the validity of proceedings under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Punjab Legislature. For convenience sake we shall refer to that amended Act as 'the Act'. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.2. It appears that several contentions were sought to be advanced before the High Court but in this Court only three contentions have been pressed for our consideration i.e. (1) the acquisition in question being one for a company proceedings should have been taken under Sections 38 to 44(b) of the Act, the same having not been taken, the proceedings taken are void; (2) there was no urgency and hence recourse should not have been had to Section 17 of the Act and (3) Section 17(2)(c) is inapplicable to the facts of the case.3. Now we may state the facts relevant for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC989; (1972)4SCC231; 1971(III)LC441(SC)
G.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal on certificate, issued under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(a) and (c), is directed against the judgment and order dated June 24, 1966 of the Madras High Court in writ Petition No. 1958 of 1965.2. The Madras Lease holds (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act 27 of 1963) hereinafter to be referred as the Act, received the assent of the President on December 12, 1963 and was published in the Gazette on January 1, 1964. The Act extends to the leasehold specified in the schedule to the Act. In exercise of the powers Under Section 1(3) of the Act, the State of Madras in G.O Press No. 311, Revenue, dated February 9, 1965 notified that the Act shall come into force on February 15, 1966. Under Section 4 of the Act, with effect on and from the appointed day, namely, February 15, 1965, the lease of every leasehold shall came and every leaseholds including all communal lands and parambokes etc. stood transferred and vested in the Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1106; 1973(0)BLJR275; 1971LabIC727; (1971)1SCC662; [1971]3SCR863
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of the High Court of Patna dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of his dismissal from service passed by the Government of Bihar.2. The appellant was first appointed as a stenographer, Sub-Inspector of Police in 1940 in the Police Service of the State. After the requisite training in the Police Training College at Hazaribagh, he was posted as a Sub-Inspector in 1950 in Champaran District. In 1954, he was promoted to officiate as an Inspector, of Police. In June 1955, he worked in Saharsa District as an officiating Inspector of Police.3. In July 1955, he received a notice to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him in a matter relating to certain cloth recovered at Katihar Police Station in a Police Case under Sections 379 and 414 of the Penal Code. The appellant submitted his reply denying any misappropriation by him. On September 26, 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1110; (1971)1SCC754; [1971]3SCR903; 1971(III)LC448(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The short question in this Appeal which is against the Judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland by special leave is whether the Respondent's services as Judge District Council Court of the Autonomous District of United Khasi Jaintia Hills could be terminated by the District Council. The facts relevant for the appeal are that on the 26th January, 1950 the Autonomous District of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills by virtue of the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 244 and the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India was constituted and the Governor of Assam was empowered to administer the said Autonomous District, pursuant thereto the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 were enforced as from the 15th October, 1951. On the 27th June 1952 a District Council and an Executive Committee was constituted for the said autonomous District. The District Council was empowered to constitute Courts and appoint suitable persons as Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC991; 1971CriLJ810; (1971)3SCC292; 1971(III)LC444(SC)
G.S. Mitter, J.1. In this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court the point canvassed before us was that in as much as the High Court found itself unable to rely fully on the evidence of six of the main prosecution witnesses with regard to at least two of the appellants before it in view of the evidence as to alibi, it had gone wrong in accepting the evidence with regard to the appellants before us and upholding their conviction.2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows. The village of Nani Naroli in the District of Surat has a population of roughly 3,500. The Bhora community to which the appellants belong command a majority thereof. The other community which has any strength is that of the Malek commanding a population of about 1,000. Both those communities are Muslim. Besides these two there is a small population of other people composed of Hindus and Vasavas. There was a good deal of hostility between Bhoras and the Malek...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1120; 1971CriLJ832; (1971)2SCC126; [1971]3SCR881; 1971(4)WLN23
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order and judgment dated 9 September, 1968 of the High Court Rajasthan.2. The question for consideration is whether the Additional Special Judge. Rajasthan, Jaipur could proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 2/68/Spl. Cr. as directed by the order of the High Court. That case was initiated under a sanction accorded by the Central Government under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 6(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellants along with four civilians were charged with offences punishable under Sections 120B, 161, 165A. 420, 409 and 467A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.3. The Special Police Establishment, Jaipur Branch on 27 January, 1966 put up before the Special Judge, Jaipur a chargesheet against the four appellants and four civilians. One of the civilians turned approver. The fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1112; 1971CriLJ824; 1971(III)LC436(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 16 February, 1968 of the High Court of Bombay convicting of the appellant Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge tried the appellant Under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 306 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court convicted accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The High Court convicted accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 Under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The sentence of accused No. 2 was to run concurrently.2. Accused No. 1 Habib Ahmed, accused No. 2 Maksood Ahmed and accused No. 6 Mahmood Ahmed are brothers. Accused No. 3 Darogasingh and accused No. 4 Chandra Shekhar are also brothers and their third brother was known in the locality as Phelwan. Phelwan was ...
Tag this Judgment!