Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2077; 1972CriLJ1317; (1972)2SCC80; [1973]1SCR428; 1972(4)LC932(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Nika Ram (34) was convicted by learned Sessions Judge Mahasu under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his wife Churi (26) and was sentenced to death. On appeal and reference under Section 374 of the CrPC, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh confirmed the conviction and death sentence. Nika Ram has now come up in appeal to this Court by Special leave.2. The prosecution case is that Nika Ram was married to Churi deceased near about 1958. In 1964 Churi gave birth to a son named Joginder. Nika Ram considered that Joginder was not his son and had been born as a result of adulterous conduct on the part of Churi. When Joginder was three months old, Churi and Joginder were sent to the house of Churi's mother Smt. Nagju (PW 2) in village Gani. Churi on arrival at her mother's house told her that the accused had not been treating her well. Afte: Churi had stayed at her mother's house for about three or four years, the accused paid visits to her and wanted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC326; 1972CriLJ1243; (1972)3SCC661
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Three brothers Pareed Pillai, Kader Pillai and Mohammed Pillai, partners of A. Pareed Pillai and Bros. Alwaye as well as K. M. Kurien Assistant Goods Clerk in the Southern Railway at Alwaye were tried In the court of Special Judge. Trichur for an offence under Section 120B Indian Penal Code on the following charge:That you (1) Sri A. Pareed Pillai (2) Sri A. Kader Pillai (3) Sri A. Mohammed Pillai and (4) Sri K.M. Kurien accused 1 to 4 between December 1962 or earlier and June 1963. at Alwaye agreed to do an illegal act or acts to wit. accused Nos. 1 and 2 to present forwarding notes in respect of coconut oil tins to be booked without actually tendering tins with coconut oil but only some empty tins, accused No. 4 to issue railway receipts in respect of such forwarding notes and accused No. 1 to present the railway receipts in support of hundies drawn on others in the Federal Bank Ltd. Alwaye and obtain value of the hundies and accused No. 3 to get empty tins transpor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2027; 1972(0)KLT411(SC); (1972)2SCC492; [1973]1SCR399
G.K. Mitter, J.1. This is a group of nine writ petitions challenging the vires of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act I of 1964) as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969) with the object of preventing the State from acquiring lands in the possession of the petitioners in excess of the ceilings imposed there under.2. The details of the holdings of the petitioners are briefly as follows :-Writ Petition No. 117/1970Petitioner company owns a block of land Ac. 2313-00 in extent out of which Ac. 1818-00 were planted with rubber trees, Ac. 30-00 with pepper, Ac. 5-50 with arecanut, Ac. 260-00 under cocoanut, Ac. 12-50 under paddy, Ac. 25-00 under nutmeg and fruit trees, the rest being jungle and waste.Writ Petition No. 132/70Petitioner, a citizen, owns land in Kesargod taluk consisting of Ac. 21-00 under cocoanut, Ac. 6-00 paddy land and Ac. 34-00 dry land. He also leased out Arc. 91-00 of land to tenants. He owns jointly with his brother an arecanut gard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2086; 1972CriLJ1323; (1972)3SCC676; [1973]1SCR392; 1972(4)LC938(SC)
G.K. Mitter, J.1. This appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of MadhyaPradesh dismissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the State Government under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1961) forfeiting the copies of a book published by the appellant under Section 4(1) of the-Act, can be disposed of on the short ground that the order did not disclose the grounds of the opinion formed by the State Government.2. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') empowered the State Governments by Section 4 to make order declaring any newspaper or book as defined in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 or any other document wherever printed, to be forfeited to the Government if it appeared to the Government that the said book etc. questioned the territorial integrity or frontiers of India in a manner which was or was likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2301; 1972(0)KLT377(SC); (1972)2SCC218; [1973]1SCR356
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. Two main points arise in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, brought by the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the petitioners (1) Whether the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 5 of 1971) hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act is within the legislative competence of the State of Kerala; and (2) whether the impugned Act is protected from challenge under Article 31A of the Constitution, and if so, to what extent.2. The petitioner is in possession of an area of approximately 1,27,904 acres, commonly known as the 'Concession Area' lying contiguously in the Kannan Devan Hills village. The petitioner grows and manufactures tea in the plantation set up and developed by it. The petitioner's predecessor-in-title was one Mr. John Danial Munro, who obtained, what is called, the first Pooniat Concession from Punhatil Kayikal Kela Varma Valuja Raja, on July 11, 1877 (Mithunam 20, 1052). This Conces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC708; (1973)2SCC109
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and the questions of law arising for decision are also few.2. The suit from which this appeal arises is for possession of the suit properties on the basis of the plaintiff's title. One Tehal Singh sold the suit properties to the predecessors in interest of the defendants by means of a deed dated October 11,1894. His son Krishna Singh sued for a declaration that the said alienation being an alienation of ancestral properties was inoperative against his reversionary interest as it had been effected without consideration and without legal necessity. This suit was filed on October 11, 1895. The suit was decreed in part. The decree declared that the plaintiff Krishna Singh will be entitled to recover possession of the suit properties after the death of his father on payment of Rs.2,500/-. This decree was made on November 28, 1895. But Krishna Singh died during the lifetime of Tehal Singh. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2219; (1972)2SCC100; [1973]1SCR383; 1973(5)LC3(SC)
K.S. Hegde J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. Defendants 34 and 35 in the suit are the appellants. The suit from which this appeal arises is a suit for partition under the Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949 (Madras Act IX of 1949) (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act).2. The two questions that arise for decision in this appeal are: (1) whether under the award decree Exh. A-2, the kutumba (family) of the plaintiffs and the defendants stood partitioned and (2) if the answer to the first question is in the negative whether the said award decree comes within the scope of Section 36(6) of the Act.3. The plaintiffs and the defendants were governed by the aliya-santana law of inheritance. It is a matriarchal system of law. One Pammadi was the propositus of the family. She had two daughters by name Pammakke and Dejappe and three sons viz. Kanthu Hegde, Monu Hegde and Manjappa Hegde. After the death of Pammadi, differences arose in the family. Hence all the major members of the fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2091; (1973)2SCC127
A.N. Grover, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are from a judgment of the Delhi High Court.2. It appears that one Manohar Lal was the owner of the premises in dispute situate in Kishangunj, Delhi. He died leaving behind him his brother Krishan Lal and two sons Hari Shanker and Gauri Shanker. In June 1943, Krishan Lal let out the premises to Hindustan Trust Pvt. Ltd of which he was the Managing Director from 1943 to 1952. In 1947 Krishan Lal filed a suit for partition in Agra Court against his nephews Hari Shanker and Gauri Shanker. In 1952 Krishan Lal became the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the respondent company. His son-in-law D. Sanghi became the Managing Director. On March 21, 1952 a compromise was effected in the suit for partition. By virtue of that compromise Gauri Shanker- the present appellant was declared to be the owner of the property in dispute and he was held entitled to realize its rent with effect from January 1, 1958. The deed of compromise was signed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2224; (1973)2SCC51
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal has been brought up by Special Leave by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, S.V.H. Electric Project Shimoga District. The lands acquired under the present proceedings were originally Government lands. They had been granted to the Respondents subject to the condition that if it becomes necessary for Government to take possession of the lands for any public purpose then no compensation will be paid to them. Despite that condition the Government notified these lands for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. During the land acquisition proceedings, the Respondents claimed compensation for the lands in question. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the compensation payable to the Respondents at Rs. 19,265.37 paise but he declined to make an Award in respect of the same in view of the condition attached to the original grant. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Additional District Judge Shimoga under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC484; 1973(0)BLJR168; 1972CriLJ1198; (1972)2SCC184; [1973]1SCR350; 1972(4)LC906(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad by which it restored the order of the Magistrate convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954), hereinafter called the 'Act', and sentencing him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of line to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, after reversing the order passed by the Sessions Judge in appeal acquitting him of the offence.2. On June 13, 1963, Head Constable Baboo Khan was on patrol duty. He happened to come to the Chakki of one Abdul Razaaq. There he found a heap of Shakkar and some labourers mixing Shelkhari in it with spades. He went to the police station to inform the Station Officer about it but the Station Officer was not there. He then met the Sanitary Inspector and informed him about what he saw at ...
Tag this Judgment!