Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC448; 1973CriLJ344; (1972)3SCC613; 1972(4)LC797(SC)
1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 16 January, 1969 of the High Court at Allahabad.2. The High Court upheld the order and judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Faizabad convicting the appellant and sentencing him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 rigorous imprisonment under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were to run concurrently.3. The appellant was head constable at the police: out-post Beghanala under the police station Chhaoni in the District of Basti, Utter Pradesh. On 10 April, 1965 which was Ram Naumi day a large number of persons had come to Ayodhya to have a dip in the holy river Saryu and a Darshan of the temples. There was a large crowd on the bridge over the river. The bridge gave way. Many persons were drowned. Bachchan Lal Srivastava, an Advocate and his brother Trilkoi Nath Srivastava an Overseer and Bachchan Lal Srivastava's cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1302; (1972)3SCC850; [1972]3SCR841
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the election petition filed by he appellant challenging the validity of the election of respondent No. 1 (who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent) to the Lok Sabha, from Rae Bareilly constituency, in the General Election to the Lok Sabha held in March, 1971.2. After the pleadings of the parties were completed and the issues framed, the appellant applied to the Court Under Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to deliver interrogatories, in writing for the examination of the respondent. The respondent objected to the same on the ground that the provisions of Order XI C.P.C. cannot be applied to election petitions. In her objectionstatement, the respondent reserved her right to object to the interrogatories sought to be served at a later stage. The application filed by the appellant for leave to serve interrogatories on the respondent was heard by Broome J. The learned Judge by his order dated September 14, 1971 overrule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1198; (1972)2SCC473; 1972(4)LC844(SC)
G.K. Mitter J.1. The petitioner before us challenges the order of detention by which he was put under arrest under Article 32 of the Constitution.2. The said order was passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Burdwan on the 3rd April, 1971 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The petitioner was arrested on the 6th April 1971 when he was served with grounds for detention. The District Magistrate had reported about the passing of the detention order together with grounds of detention and other particulars to the State Govt.on the 3rd April, 1971. The report and particulars were considered by the Government on the 13th April and the detention order was approved on the same day. The State Government also submitted a report to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner made a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1171; 1972CriLJ744; 1972MhLJ558(SC); (1972)3SCC659; 1972(4)LC811(SC)
1. This is an appeal by Special Leave against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and a sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.2. According to the prosecution, the appellant was aggrieved by the action of Smt. Kondabai, the widow of the appellant's Uncle named Bapu. She had taken steps to obtain a revocation of a gift deed executed by her on September 9, 1958, in favour of Bhika, the father of the appellant. It appears that Bhika had induced his sister-in-law Kondabai, after the death of his brother Bapu, to make the gift by executing an annuity bond to pay maintenance to her in lieu of it. It was alleged that, as the undertaking was not carried out by Bhika, Kondabai had taken steps for the revocation of the gift deed on the ground that it was not voluntary. It appears that, due to this and other causes of friction and disputes, Kondabai had gone to live with her sister Laxmibai.3. On 24-10-1965, at about 5 a.m., when Kondabai had gone to a field to answer th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1234; [1972(24)FLR296]; 1972LabIC632; (1972)IILLJ20SC; (1972)2SCC88; [1972]3SCR770
1. Civil Appeal Nos. 742 and 2086 of 1968, by special leave, arise out of the decision regarding demand No. 4 under Award Part II, dated November 15, 1967 of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, in Reference (IT) 65 of 1966. As Atic Industries Ltd., and its workmen could not settle the various demands made by the latter, on the joint application of both, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad, by order dated February 19, 1966 referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, nine demands made by the workmen. The demands cover various matters and have been elaborately set out in the Schedule annexed to the order of reference. It is enough to note that the demands covered revision of wage scales, dearness allowance, shift allowance, vacation traveling allowance, housing facilities etc. Demand No. 4, with which we are concerned was as follows :All workmen who make use of the S.T. Bus Service shall be paid Rs. 20/- per month as Bus Allowance and those workmen who come Cycli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1586; (1972)2SCC11; [1972]3SCR815
D.G.Palekar, J.1. In these 12 petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by the hereditary Archakas and Mathadhipatis of some ancient Hindu Public temples in Tamil Nadu the validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, 1970) is called in question, principally, on the ground that it violates their freedom of religion secured to them under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The validity of the Amendment Act had been also impugned on the ground that if interfered with certain other fundamental rights of the petitioners but that case was not pressed at the time of the hearing.2. The temples With which we are concerned are Saivite and Vaishnavite temples in Tamil Nadu. Writ Petitions 70, 83, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443 and 444/71 art filed by the Archakas and Writ Petitions 13 tad 14/1971 are filed by the Mathadhipatis to whose Math some temples are attached. As, Common questions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1309; 1972CriLJ881; (1972)3SCC484; 1972(4)LC855(SC)
1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.2. The facts briefly are that one Khulesar was murdered on October 25, 1966 at 12 noon in village Kawali in the district of Bailaspur in Madhya Pradesh. Originally 20 persons were committed to stand the trial under Section 302, IPC, read with Section 149 and other sections. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur acquitted 12 persons and convicted the remaining 8 under Section 302 read with Section 149 and other sections on whom a sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed. The present appellant filed an appeal to the High Court. The other convicted persons also preferred appeals. All these appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by which the conviction of all the appellants were upheld. Only Satyanarain-the appellant-has come up in appeal to this Court.3. It is somewhat unfortunate that the High Court has delivered a highly sketchy judgment and has not given proper consideration to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1812; 1972LabIC909; (1972)3SCC383; [1972]3SCR796
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the summary dismissal of a Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Chancellor of the Saugar University dated the 15th June 1970 by which his appointment as Vice-Chancellor of that University was cancelled.2. It may at the outset be mentioned that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the Saugar University is made by the Chancellor of that University under Section 13 of the University of Saugar Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from a panel of net less than three persons recommended by the Committee constituted under Sub-section 2 of that Section. The Committee to be constituted under Sub-section 2 was to consist of three persons, two of whom shall be elected by the Executive Council by single transferable vote from amongst persons not connected with the University or a College and the third shall be nominated by the Chancellor who was also empowered to appoint one of them as C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1229; 1972CriLJ763; (1972)3SCC388; 1972(4)LC808(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals are by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court.2. Originally 8 persons were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 380 and 452, IPC, as well as Sections 302, 307, 323 & 325 read with Section 148 of the Penal Code. One of the accused persons Sher Deen was acquitted. The other seven persons were convicted. Brahm Singh and Sardare were sentenced to death. The other five were sentenced to life imprisonment. For the other offences sentences of imprisonment were imposed on the convicted persons. The sentences were to run concurrently.3. Appeals were preferred to the High Court by the seven convicted persons. A reference was also made under Section 374 of the Criminal PC for confirmation of the death sentence imposed on Brahm Singh and Sardare. The High Court acquitted Om Pal but maintained the conviction of others under the main offences although the conviction of some of the accused pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1816; 38(1972)CLT481(SC); (1972)2SCC36; [1972]3SCR784
1. These appeals by certificate raise common questions of law for decision. The questions of law arising for decision can be more conveniently brought out if the material facts are first set out. It is sufficient, if we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 1971.2. The 1st respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 1971 is carrying on the business of selling country liquor. In pursuance of the order made by the State of Orissa, the Excise Commissioner notified on January 8, 1971 that the exclusive privilege of selling by retail the country liquor in the eight specified shops in the Cuttack District for the period from April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972 will be sold by public auction on February 15, 1971 and on the following days. The auction was accordingly held oh the notified day. The 1st respondent was the highest bidder for those eight shops. His bids were provisionally accepted by the Collector subject to confirmation by the Government. The Government rejected those bids being o...
Tag this Judgment!