Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1830; 1974CriLJ897; (1974)4SCC254; 1973(5)LC879(SC)
Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by Alisher against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court altered the conviction of the appellant from under Section 412 Indian Penal Code to that under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and reduced his sentence from rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years to that of one year.2. The prosecution case is that a dacoity took place at the house of Ajab Singh in village Kanjoli within the area of police station Rampur on the night between July 26 and 27, 1965. As a result of that dacoity, one D.B.B.L. Gun No 47942, belonging to Dataram, father of Ajab Singh, was carried away by the dacoits. Report about the dacoity was lodged by Ajab Singh with the police. On April 16, 1966, it is stated, Sub Inspector Hari Prakash Sharma on receipt of intimation organised a police picket on a canal road in police circle Titawi. At about 6 p.m., the appellant was seen coming from the direction of village Khatauley. The appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC35; 1974CriLJ153; (1974)76PLR171; (1974)3SCC380; 1974(6)LC54(SC)
Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by Ramnaresh Pandey against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court.2. The appellant was prosecuted under Section 506 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he had on May 11, 1970 committed an offence of criminal intimidation by intimidating Lady Dr. Majumdar. The trial magistrate convicted the appellant under part II of Section 506 Indian Penal Code and directed that he be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on the execution of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 700 and with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge Jagdalpur altered the conviction of the appellant to that under Part I of Section 506 Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the trial court releasing the appellant on probation of good conduct and awarded a sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 50. In default of payment of f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1828; 1974CriLJ895; (1974)4SCC252; 1974(6)LC64(SC)
Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by Sultan Ahmed Khan against the judgment of the Patna High Court, affirming on appeal the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.2. The prosecution case is that the accused appellant was employed as a dealing assistant in the office of the Block Development Officer (BDO). Mashrakh Block, District Sharan, at the relevant time. Sobhan Singh (PW2), who was a college student in those days, had received Rs. 60/- as advance subsidy in connection with the repair of his well from BDO. A scheme was in operation in those days under which half the cost of repairing a well was met by the government. Sobhan Singh completed the work of repairing the well and asked for the balance amount of the subsidy. An application was filed by him in the office of BDO for that purpose. Sobhan Singh met the accused in co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC66; (1974)3SCC425; [1974]1SCR822
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. The appellants, Laxminarayan and Marotrao, filed an election petition challenging the election of Jambuwantrao Dhote to the Lok Sabha from 21 Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency. There were five candidates in the run. Dhote was one. He was elected. The poll was on April 18, 1971. Dhote obtained 1,25,665 votes. The next highest votes were obtained by Rikhabchand Sharma. He polled 1,23,615 votes.2. The election was challenged on diverse grounds. There were as many as 13 issues. The record of evidence is voluminous. The judgment of the High Court runs to 244 pages. The High Court decided all the issues against the appellants. Hence this appeal.3. Sri Phadke, counsel for the appellants, has not covered the whole ground again; he has confined his arguments to issues 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9. Thus the scope of inquiry is much narrower in the appeal.Issue No. 2 :4. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) specifies the grounds on which th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC28; (1974)3SCC469; [1974]1SCR793; 1973(5)LC889(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. Petitioner Masud Khan prays for his release on the ground that he, an Indian citizen has been illegally arrested and confined to jail under Paragraph 5 of the Foreigners (Internment) Order, 1962. He had come to India from Pakistan on the basis of a Pakistani passport dated 13-7-1954 and Indian visa dated 9-4-1956. In his application for visa he had stated that he had migrated to Pakistan in 1948 and was in Government service in Pakistan in P.W.D. as a Darogha and had given his permanent address as Hyderabad (Sind). If these statements were correct the petitioner would clearly be a Pakistani national. When this fact was brought out in the counter affidavit filled on behalf of the respondent, the petitioner filed a further affidavit stating that he was appointed as a Police Constable in Hasanganj Police Station, District Fatehpur, U.P. in February 1947 and continued as a Police Constable till the middle of 1950 when he was dismissed from service, and that he went to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC87; (1973)IILLJ504SC; (1973)2SCC836; [1974]1SCR797
K.K. Mathew, J.1. I am in full agreement with the conclusion reached by my learned brother and the reasons for it. In view of the importance of certain questions which arise for consideration in this case, I think it meet that I should express my views upon those questions.2. The first question for consideration is whether the High Court was right in its interpretation of Regulation 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Promotion Regulations) framed under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter called the 'Recruitment Rules') that seniority should be the dominant factor for making selection for inclusion in the list to be prepared under Regulation 5(1) and that merit and suitability are only of secondary importance.3. Regulations 4 and 5 of the Promotion Regulations read :4(1) Each Committee shall meet at interv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1; 1974LabIC1; (1974)ILLJ121SC; (1974)1SCC19; [1974]1SCR771
Chandrachud, J.1. If persons drawn from different sources are integrated into one class, can they be classified for purposes of promotion on the basis of their educational qualifications? That is the issue for consideration before us.2. Respondents, who are Diploma Holders in Engineering, filed in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of certain Service Rules framed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. A Learned single Judge dismissed the petition but in appeal a Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the impugned rules were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The correctness of that view is challenged by the State of Jammu and Kashmir in this appeal by special leave.3. Respondents, who are serving in different branches of the Engineering Service of the appellants, were appointed as Assistant Engineers between 1960 and 1966 by promotion from the Subordinate Engineering Service. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC336; 1974CriLJ279; (1974)3SCC518
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Eight accused Asgar Hussain, Talib, Ilyas, Israil, Mashooq, Akhtar, Jarrar and Afsar were convicted by the Civil & Sessions Judge Moradabad for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and other minor offences. Asgar Hussain and Israil 'were sentenced to death, while the remaining six accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Sentences of imprisonment for minor offences were also imposed upon the eight accused. On appeal and reference, the Allahabad High Court acquitted Mashooq, Akhtar, Jarrar and Afear. The conviction of the remaining four accused was altered to that under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Their conviction for minor offences too was maintained. The High Court affirmed the death sentence of Asgar Hussain, while that of Israil was converted into one for imprisonment for life. Sentence for imprisonment for life imposed upon Talib and Ilyas was maintained. Asgar Hussain, Talib, Ilyas and Israil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2766; 1975(0)BLJR135; 1973LabIC1621; (1973)IILLJ488SC; (1974)3SCC473; [1974]1SCR760; 1973(5)LC892(SC)
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The Management of Sijua (Jherriah) Electric Supply Company Ltd.-the respondents-had initially offered only 4 per cent. bonus to all the employees of its establishment because the allocable surplus which was available was less than 4 per cent. Subsequently, having regard to the decision of the Madras High Court it revised the calculations of allocable surplus and offered to distribute to its employees under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter termed 'the Bonus Act'), a sum of Rs. 34,492/-. The workmen (Appellants) refused to accept this amount as the management had failed to furnish the details or the basis of computing the amount which was being offered to them. A dispute was thus raised, and it was referred to conciliation. It appears that during these conciliation proceedings, both the parties agreed to the following terms of settlement :(1) The Union agree to accept the present offer of the management purely on provisional basis without prejudice to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC37; (1973)IILLJ495SC; (1974)3SCC498; [1974]1SCR747
K.K. Mathew, J.1. In this appeal, by special leave, the, question for consideration is whether the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was right in accepting the conclusion arrived at by the Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments, Hyderabad that, employer and employee relationship existed between the Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and others, the appellants, and the workers represented by the second respondent, and that the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Shops and Establishments Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was therefore applicable to the establishments in question.2. The second respondent representing the workers, made certain claims before 'the competent authority' under Section 37A of the Act read with Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 against the Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Others, the appellants. Thereafter, 'the competent authority' referred for the decision of the State Government under Section 49 of the Act, the question whether t...
Tag this Judgment!