Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1910; 1971CriLJ1422; (1971)2SCC387; [1971]SuppSCR848
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This Appeal is by Special leave against the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 as also the sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge of one year's Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500, in default six months Rigorous Imprisonment.2. The facts of the case in brief are that in view of the Chinese invasion Air Field at Sirsa required to be extended for which purpose the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India took steps to acquire some lands of agriculturists pursuant to which a Notification dated November 27, 1962 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1884 for acquiring 51.79 acres of land situated in the State of Ahmedpur. On the next day another Notification was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on November 28, 1962 and in view of the emergency action under Section 17 was taken for obtaining possession of the land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1273; 1972CriLJ871; (1972)4SCC729; 1971(III)LC725(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellants have been convicted Under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for that offence, each one of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years.2. The prosecution case was that the first appellant who is a Chamar was in the service of Khelari P.W. 3 & Ahir, P.W. 3 developed intimacy with the wife of the first appellant.This was resented by the first appellant Because of that enmity on January 14, 1967 at about 9.00 P.M. the appellants caught hold of Kamla, the wife of the first appellant and cut her nose. On hearing her cries P.W. 3 came near the house of the first appellant. The appellant caught hold of him and cut his nose as well.3. The appellants other than the first appellant denied their presence at the time of the occurrence. According to appellant No. 1 when he came back to his house at about 9.00 P.M. on that day he found his wife in the company of P.W. 3 and on seeing them together, he completely los...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1402; (1971)2SCC349; [1971]SuppSCR753
Sikri, C.J.1. The respondent Ram Kishan, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, a Foot Constable, filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, challenging his dismissal from service by an order dated 25th October, 1960. This order was passed by Shri M.K. Saxena, Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Delhi. It was alleged by the plaintiff that this order was bad and illegal on various grounds. Two grounds may be mentioned here: (1) That Shri M.K. Saxena, Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Delhi was not a District Superintendent of Police; (2) That the mandatory provisions of Punjab Police Rule 16.38 had been violated inasmuch as no information was given to the District Magistrate as laid down in the Punjab Police Rule 16.38(1) and the District Magistrate never decided whether the preliminary investigation was to be conducted by the police or by a selected Magistrate 1st Class. It was further alleged that even the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.38 were not observed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1713; 1971CriLJ1271; (1972)4SCC558; 1971(III)LC710(SC)
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention of the petitioner by Order No. 50/PDA/70 dated August 3, 1970 passed by Syed Mohammad Shaffi Andrabi, I.A.S., District Magistrate, Poonch, Under Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act 1964 In this order it is stated that the District Magistrate is satisfied that with a view to preventing Lal Mohd. son of Fazal-ud-Din, resident of Arri P.S Mendhar District Poonch, from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of State, it was necessary to detain him. By another order dated August 3, 1970, the said District Magistrate considered it against the public interest to disclose the grounds of detention to Lal Mohd and he therefore directed in pursuance of Section 8 read with Section 13-A of the Act that the said Lal Mohd. be informed that it was against the security of the State to disclose to him the grounds on which his detention order was made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1396; (1971)2SCC356; [1971]SuppSCR810
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court made in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.2. The appellant is a statutory board established under the provisions of Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The Act applies to all waqfs which at the time of its coming into force were under the superintendence of the Sunni Central Board and the Shia Central Board constituted under the U.P. Muslims Waqfs Act 1936.3. The present proceedings relate to the famous Durgah of Hazrat Sheikh Saleem Chishti at Fatehpuri Sikri in the district of Agra said to have been established by Emperor Akbar. The Durgah was administered originally by the Moghuls and thereafter by the Board of Revenue established by the British Government under the Bengal Regulation No. 19 of 1810. Subsequently the Religious Endowment Act 1861 (Act 20 of 1863) was passed which provided for the management of mosques, temples and other re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1705; (1971)2SCC434; [1971]SuppSCR816
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This Appeal is by a Certificate against the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court given in a batch of Writ Petitions of which the Writ Petition giving rise to this Appeal was one. The High Court while dismissing the Writ Petitions gave certain directions to which we will refer later.2. A few facts may be stated to appreciate the matters in issue in this appeal. The Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act (Act XVI of 1952) became applicable to the State of Andhra and subsequently to the Andhra Pradesh when the respective reorganisation of States took place in 1953 and 1956. In 1959 the Andhra Pradesh legislature enacted the Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act with a view to augment the revenue of the State. By this amendment Act the rates had been increased in respect of State carriages as well as in respect of goods vehicles. It is not necessary to notice what those rates are except to say t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1696; (1971)2SCC489; [1971]SuppSCR761
G.K. Mitter, J.1. By this petition the petitioners challenge the validity of (1) the Professions Tax Limitation (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1949, (2) Section 131 of the U.P. Zila Parishad Act, (3) an order of assessment of Rs. 2,000/-dated 25th March, 1968 made by the Kar Adhikari, Zila Parishad Muzaffarnagar and pray for incidental reliefs.2. The petitioners carry on the business of manufacture and sale of 'khandsari' and 'gur' in the District of Muzaffarnagar, U.P. They own a crusher in village Morna in the said district where the manufacture of khandsari as sugar is carried on. They challenge the imposition of 'Circumstances and Property' tax of Rs. 2,000/-imposed on their business under the order of assessment passed by respondent No. 2, Kar Adhikari, Zila Parishad Muzaffarnagar for the year 1967-68. As they did not produce their accounts for their business in khandsari the Kar Adhikari, an officer appointed by the Zila Parishad of Muzaffarnagar assessed them to Rs. 2,000/-as '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1956; (1972)3SCC337; 1971(III)LC713(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. These seven appeals by special leave arise out of the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Punjab in Letters Patent Appeals 58-D of 1960 and 52-D of 1960, decided on March 10, 1965. Civil Appeal No. 686 of 1966 is against the judgment by which the application of the appellants (decree-holders) to withdraw and appropriate an amount of Rs. 29,000/-deposted in the executing Court in Delhi by Jasbir Singh, respondent 3 herein towards the decretal amount due to them under a consent decree, dated January 30, 1951, was disallowed. The rest of the appeals are consequential upon that order inasmuch as they are against the order by which rateable distribution of the said sum of Rs. 29,000/-amongst the respondents, who are the other judgment-creditors of the said Jasbir Singh, was directed.2. All the seven appeals were listed for being heard ex-parte on the ground of respondents 1 to 3 not having filed their appearance and their statements of case within time. On goi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1405; 1971CriLJ1117; (1971)2SCC366; [1971]SuppSCR792
Hegde, J.1. Nine persons including the two appellants were tried for the murder of Ghulam Rasool as well as for attempting to murder P.W. 9, Mohd. Islam. Four out of those nine accused were acquitted by the trial court. The remaining accused were convicted under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. But in appeal, the High Court acquitted all the appellants before it in respect of the incident relating to the murder of Ghulam Rasool. Further it converted the conviction of appellant No. 1 for causing injuries to P.W. 9 from one under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. to one under Section 326, I.P.C. and for that offence sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The conviction of appellant No. 2 Bano alias Ibrahim was converted from Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. to one under Section 324, I.P.C. and for that offence he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. As against that decision this appeal has been brought by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1962; 1972MHLJ241(SC); 1972MPLJ305; (1971)2SCC438; [1971]SuppSCR796
Hegde, J.1. These appeals arise from a partition suit between two brothers. The plaintiff is the elder brother and the 1st defendant is his younger brother. The second defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of Dr. Sudarsban Pandit, a medical practitioner who practised at Indore. Dr. Pandit had extensive practice. He died on April 6, 1949 leaving behind him extensive properties. His wife had died in 1918. Dr. Pandit had three daughters. We are not concerned with them in this case. The contest is mainly between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. There is also a dispute as regards the ownership of a deposit of Rs. 50,000 made by Dr. Pandit in the name of the second defendant.2. The contention of the 1st defendant was that the plaintiff had separated himself from the rest of the family as far back as 1936 and therefore he is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. Further he took the plea that deposits of Rs. 41,000 in the B...
Tag this Judgment!