Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2708; 40(1974)CLT187(SC); 1973CriLJ1835; (1974)3SCC383; [1974]1SCR656; 1973(5)LC826(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Chittaranjan Das appellant was convicted by Magistrate First Class Cuttack under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six weeks. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Cuttack. The appellant then went up in revision to the High Court but his revision petition too was dismissed by the Orissa High Court. The appellant thereafter filed the present appeal by special leave.2. The case for the prosecution is that on July 17, 1965 Food Inspector Behera went to the stall of the accused in the Old Secretariat Compound Cuttack and found potato chops being fried by an employee of the accused in groundnut oil in a frying pan. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the accused and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2673; (1974)3SCC388; [1974]1SCR650; 1974(6)LC16(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by Ram Prasad (65), his son Udit Narain (22) and their servant Sri Pal (22) against the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court affirming on appeal the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Lucknow whereby the three appellants and three others, namely Sarju, Putti and Jaganath had been convicted under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months on the first count and imprisonment for life on the second count.2. The occurrence giving rise to the present case took place on March 31, 1967 at 2.30 p.m. in front of and inside the tarwaha of the house of Jaskaran, father of Jagannath accused, in village Gadarian Purwa at a distance of two miles from police station Mandiaon. The person murdered during the course of the occurrence was Parmeshwar Din (35). The prosecution case is that Parmeshwar Din deceased and Sita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1789; [1974(28)FLR436]; (1974)ILLJ91SC; (1974)4SCC852
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. In this appeal the short question is whether the order of the High Court directing the Commissioner to prepare the electoral roll on the basis of the membership as on 20th April, 1969 is in accordance with the previous orders and directions of the High Court.2. It appears that the second appellant is the trade union while the 1st appellant is the General Secretary of the union. On or about the 20th of April, 1969, there were some disputes between the office bearers of the executive committee of the appellant of which the 1st appellant was the General Secretary and another set office bearers who alleged that they were duly elected as the executive committee of the union of which the respondent was the General Secretary. It is unnecessary to go into the his troy of the subsequent litigation except to say that two suits were filed by the appellant, one for an injunction against the respondent from interfering with the possession of the properties of the union in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2677; 1973CriLJ1810; (1974)3SCC406
A. Algiriswami, J.1. The appellant, his father Karam Singh, his uncle Bawa Singh and Bawa Singh's son Charan Singh were tried by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in respect of the murder of one Darshan Singh on 12th October. 1967. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Karam Singh and on appeal the High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted Bawa Singh. Charan Singh has not filed any appeal. This appeal is by Chain Singh alone against the judgment of the High Court which modified the death sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Judge to one of imprisonment for life.2. The day in question was the Dussehra Day. Sadhu Singh, P. W. 6, and his brothers, Ajit Singh, P. W. 9 and Malkiat Singh, P. W. 11 as well as his cousin Lachhman Singh, P. W. 10 and his brother-in-law Ajit Singh, P. W. 7 had gone to village Garhdiwala to witness the Dussehra festival. While they were returning there from the appellant, who came on a cycle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2684; 1973CriLJ1818; (1973)2SCC674; [1974]1SCR621
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The short question that arises for determination in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is whether the production of the body of the person alleged to be unlawfully detained is essential before an application for a writ of habeas corpus can be finally heard and disposed of by the Court. The question is of some importance, affecting as it does the practice and procedure to be followed in an application for a writ which has come to be universally recognised as the most effective protection invented by Anglo Saxon jurisprudence against wrongful deprivation of personal liberty. It is not necessary for a proper determination of the question to recount the facts giving rise to the petition, nor is it necessary to set the grounds on which the petitioner contends that he has been illegally restrained of liberty. It would be sufficient to state that the petitioner filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that he has been wrongfully deprived of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2679; 1973CriLJ1812; (1974)3SCC361; [1974]1SCR636
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by Mohandas Lalwani against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal of the Special Judge Bhopal and convicted the accused appellant under Section 165A Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.2. The Executive Engineer, Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HEL), Bhopal invited tenders for construction of four BCC overhead tanks, each of one lakh gallons capacity, by a tender notice published on December 23, 1965. Four contractors, including the accused appellant, submitted their tenders. Those tenders were opened on February 1, 1966. It was found that the tender of the appellant, who had stipulated that he would use 18 tons of steel, was of the lowest amount. The other three contractors had stipulated that they would use 24 tons of steel.3. The case of the prosecution is that on April 9, 1966 PW 1 Shivnarain W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2720; (1973)2SCC696; [1974]1SCR615
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The appellant was granted a mining lease on August 30, 1969 by the State of Bihar (Respondent 3) with the prior approval of the Central Government (Respondent 2) for winning a mineral known as appetite over as area of 1999.634 acres. Respondent 1 filed a writ petition on September 15, 1969 challenging the lease on the ground that he had earlier on March 22, 1965, applied for a mining lease over an area of 280.62 acres in certain villages of Singhbhum District which was included in the lease granted to the appellant, but as no orders were passed by the State Government within the statutory period the application was deemed to have been rejected. He thereafter filed a revision petition to the Central Government which called for the comments of the State Government. The State Government intimated to the Central Government that it wanted to work the area itself and for that reason had in fact rejected all the applications for this area including that of the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC699; 1974CriLJ621; 1983(13)ELT1524(SC); (1974)3SCC393; [1974]1SCR645
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Bombay High Court affirming on appeal the conviction of the appellant under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. The prosecution case is that on August 17, 1961 Sub Inspector Sahani of the Railway Preventive Section, on receipt of some information, went to room No. 2 on the second floor of Bori Chawl in the 13th lane, Kamathipura, Bombay. The accused was found present there, holding a bag. The said bag was taken into possession by the Sub Inspector and was found to contain 25 bars of gold, weighing ten tolas each, of the value of Rs. 78,400/. The bars had foreign markings. The Sub Inspector arrested the accused for an offence under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. As the articles recovered from the accused consisted of gold bars with foreign markings, the matter was entrusted to the Customs Officer H.C. Advani (PW 2). The gold bars too were han...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1155; 1974CriLJ811; (1974)3SCC489
H.R. Khanna, J. 1. This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by Baidya Nath Mandi, who has been ordered to be detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act.2. No return in opposition to the petition has been filed, but Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondents has at the hearing admitted the following facts. The original order for the detention of the petitioner under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act was made by the District Magistrate Burdwan on December 22, 1971. The petitioner was thereafter arrested and was kept in detention. While the petitioner was in detention, this Court gave its judgment in the case of Shambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal W.P. No. 266 of 1972, dated 19-4-1973 : reported in : [1974]1SCR1 . After the aforesaid decision, the State of West Bengal directed that the petitioner be released. The petitioner was, accordingly, released on April 25, 1973. The same day, according to Mr. Chatterjee, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2751; 1973CriLJ1839; (1974)3SCC368; [1974]1SCR605
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge of Bombay under Section 165-A I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. On appeal the High Court of Bombay upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months. The appellant is a partner of a firm owning the New India Knitting Mills in Amritsar. It has a sister concern called J.D. Woollen and Silk Mills, which is owned by a partnership firm of which the appellant's minor son is a partner. On 10-10-1963 the J.D. Mills was given an import licence for Rs. 23,480/- for spare parts for Warp Knitting Machine from Germany. Towards a part of that import licence goods valued at Rs. 11,699/- arrived in Bombay on 16.3.1964. The J.D. Mills arranged for clearance of this consignment by the New Suraj Transit Company having its head office in Amritsar and a branch in Bombay. One Hiro Shahani, who became an approver in this case, was an employee of the clear...
Tag this Judgment!