Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1143; 1974CriLJ799; (1974)3SCC581; [1974]2SCR72; 1974(6)LC25(SC)
Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated September 28, 1972 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 1971--OrderKrishna Iyer, J.1. A petition from jail-this is one-demands closer judicial care and we have with deep concern scanned the materials placed before us in the light of the grounds of grievances urged in this appeal. We find no reason to disagree with the findings of guilt and refuse special leave. Even so, we are disturbed, having a look at the proceedings in this case, that the sessions judges do not view with sufficient seriousness the need to appoint State counsel for undefended accused in grave cases. Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates, equal to handling the complex cases-not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar. Sufficient time and complete papers should also be made available, so that the advocate chosen may ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2783; 1974CriLJ11; (1974)3SCC584; 1974(6)LC29(SC)
Beg, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment by a Magistrate 1st Class, Bhind, in Madhya Pradesh. He was found in unlicensed possession of 20 live cartridges of mark three and 39 live cartridges of 'mouzer' type during the night between 12th and 13th October 1968 at Village Kishorsingh-Ka-Pura in Behad. Learned Sessions' Judge of Bhind dismissed his appeal with the observation 'Such crimes connected with dacoity deserve a severe punishment'. The High Court had also rejected the revision application of the petitioner.2. Concurrent findings of fact conclude the case against the petitioner so far as his possession of unlicensed cartridges on the date and the time and place given in the charge are concerned. The fact that the two witnesses called from amongst the members of the public, namely, Raghunathsingh (P.W. 1) and Gambhirsingh Tomar (P.W. 2). had turned hostile was considered by the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC45; 1974CriLJ143; (1974)3SCC543; 1974(6)LC26(SC)
Khanna, J.1. Jainul Haque and 12 others were convicted by learned Assistant Sessions judge Muzaffarpur under Section 147; 323 and 447 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to under go on that account: various terms of imprisonment. Jainul Haque with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years on that account. Ainul Haque, who too was an accused, was convicted under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. Charge was also framed against Jainul Haque under Section 379 Indian Penal Code but he was acquitted in respect of that charge. On appeal the Patna High Court acquitted 10 of the accused. The conviction of two of the accused, namely, Nainul Haque and Abdul Majid, was maintained under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. The conviction of Jainul Haque was altered to that Section 323 read with Section 114 Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The conviction of Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC47; (1974)3SCC680; [1974]2SCR39
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The respondent-a nominee of the Utkal Congress of which Biju Patnaik an ex-Chief Minister of the Orissa State is the founder leader-was elected to the Lok Sabha from the Kendrapara parliamentary constituency in that State, by defeating two candidates, namely Surendranath Dwivedi-a nominee of the Praja Socialist Party-and Pradyamna Kishore Bal-a nominee of the Indian National Congress (R) Party. At this election the respondent Surendra Mohanty polled 1,23,680 votes, Surendranath Dwivedi 1,20,707 votes and Pradyamna. Kishore Bal 1,11,235 votes. The appellant-a voter in that constituency-challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that corrupt practices under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951-hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'-which were detailed in Sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) of paragraph 5 of the petition were committed by him and/or by his agents with his consent. The petition, after it was duly tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC769; [1974(28)FLR89]; 1974LabIC465; (1974)3SCC514; 1973(5)LC863(SC)
Dwivedi, J.1. One Kailash Kumar is employed as a Jeep Driver with the appellant in its factory at Ghaziabad. He was employed as a temporary hand some time in 1962. He claimed to be a permanent employee and also demanded the Driver's scale of Rs, 90-5-165 plus dearness allowance. The appellant did not concede his demand. The State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to Labour Court, Meerut. Labour Court has given an award in favour of Kailash Kumar on August 9, 1968. The award directs the appellant to make Kailash Kumar a permanent employee and to give him the scale of Rs. 90 5 165 and dearness allowance admissible to a Permanent employee of the category of drivers with effect from May 6, 1967. This award is questioned by the appellant before us.2. Counsel for the appellant has made two submissions. The first submission is that the dispute of Kailash Kumar not having been espoused by the appropriate Union of the workmen or a number of workmen of the appellant was not an ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC175; (1974)1SCC68; [1974]2SCR60
Dwivedi, J.1. The Kottayam Electric Supply Agency, Kottayam, is the licensee for the supply of electric energy in Kottayam in the State of Kerala. The appellant, N.S. Mooss, is the proprietor of the licensee, By an order, dated May 17 1963, the State of Kerala revoked the licence with effect from August 1, 1963. The order was made under Section 5(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter called the Act. On the same date, the State of Kerala made another order under Section 5(1)(c) and (3) of the Act directing the appellant to deliver the undertaking to the Kerala Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board) on or before July 1, 1963. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the two orders. The High Court has dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.2. Sri Sen, counsel for the appellant, has urged four points before us. One of these points is : The Board endorsed the State proposal for the revocation of the licence before th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC17; [1973(27)FLR398]; 1974LabIC128; (1974)ILLJ94SC; (1974)3SCC510; 1973(5)LC850(SC)
Dwivedi, J.1. The appellant is the Hindustan Lever Ltd., Ghaziabad. One P.P. Jude was employed as Incharge of the Animal Feeding Stuff Department in the factory at Ghaziabad. On April 10, 1967 he was transferred as incharge to the Engineering Store Section, There are four grades of technical employees in the factory. The grades are called as Grade T 1, Grade T 2, Grade T 3, and Grade T 4, When P.P. Jude was working as Incharge of the Animal Feeding Stuff Department, he was in grade T. 3. He was claiming to be placed in grade T 4, a higher grade. So there were two disputes in regard to his employment : (1) about his transfer from the Animal Feeding Stuff Department to the Engineering Store Section; and (2) about his being given Grade T. 4. These disputes were referred by the State Government for adjudication to Labour Court, Meerut, on December 30, 1967.2. Labour Court framed five issues. One of them is: whether P.P. Jude not placed in Grade T4 because of his trade union activities. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1657; (1974)1SCC418; 1973(5)LC853(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Munsif's court; where he brought a suit for partition on the basis that he was the son of Rambhajan, the predeceased son of one Jagram, the owner of the property sought to be divided. The learned munsiff granted a decree but in appeal it was reversed. This dismissal of the suit was affirmed in the High Court, and the plaintiff-appellant has come to this Court, urging before us the only point that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title, turning on his sonship, which had already been held in his favour by the consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1954) hereinafter called, for short, the Act.2. This being the sole short point involved in this case, the facts may be briefly set out and the law bearing on this question stated. One Jagram had four sons, including Rambhajan. The latter pre-deceased the father, having died in 1942. The plaintiff appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC532; 1974LabIC393; (1974)ILLJ239SC; (1974)1SCC87; [1974]2SCR1
Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner, Shrimati Arati Ray Choudhury, is a permanent employee in the South Eastern Railway-a Government of India Undertaking-which runs two Higher Secondary Schools for girls one at Adra and other at Kharagpur. Broadly stated, the question which we have to decide in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is whether the vacancy in the post of the Headmistress of the Kharagpur school can be treated as being reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, a question which depends for its decision both on the interpretation and the validity of the 'Carry forward' rule. The petitioner assails that rule and contends that the vacancy is open to all candidates while respondent No. 8, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, contends for a contrary position.2. In August 1966, a vacancy arose in the post of the Headmistress of the Adra school and was filled up on the footing that it was unreserved. The Headmistress of the Kharagpur school was due to retire with effect from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2261; (1974)4SCC621; 1973(5)LC843(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in Civil Revision No 33 of 1972 nor is there any need to set out the facts in detail.2. A preliminary decree had been passed in favour of the present appellant who was the defendant in the suit pursuant to the cross claim he had made. That preliminary decree was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal before the High Court and pending the appeal the High Court had directed that while final decree proceedings could be continued no final decree as such should be passed. Eventually, the High Court set aside the preliminary decree passed by the trial court, Against that judgment, an appeal was carried to this Court in Civil Appeal 471 of 1971. This Court ultimately restored the trial Court's decree in these words:-In the result, we set aside the judgment decree of the High Court and restore that of the trial court. This Court further directed:-We may mention that in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed...
Tag this Judgment!