Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC245; 1974CriLJ1252; (1974)4SCC501; 1974(6)LC343(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. These petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus concern two different detenues and arise out of detention orders passed on different dates. But the orders of detention suffer from a common vice and it would be convenient to dispose of the two petitions by one judgment.Writ Petition No. 1856 of 1973 :2. The petitioner Fogla alias Nandulal Bhuiya was detained by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, under an order of detention dated January 3, 1972 passed under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The petitioner was detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the cummunity. The particulars of the grounds were furnished to the petitioner on the same date. They show that the allegation against the petitioner is that on November 17, 1971 he and his associates were caught red-handed while attempting to commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1706; 1974CriLJ1175; (1974)4SCC500; 1974(6)LC341(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. It is contended in the first place that in answer to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court the District Magistrate who passed the order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, ought himself to have filed the affidavit in reply and that no valid reason is shown why, instead, the affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal. Now the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary shows that the District Magistrate of Midanpore who passed the order of detention was not available for affirming the affidavit as he was transferred to another district. this Court has pointed out in numerous cases that as far as possible affidavit in answer to the Rule Nisi should be filed by the person who has passed the order of detention. It cannot however be laid down as a rule open to no exceptions that if the detaining authority does not file his own affidavit the order of de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC12; 1975CriLJ32; (1975)3SCC311
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Malkhan Singh (18) and Munshi Lal (22) were convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge Aligarih for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. On appeal the Allahabad High Court altered the conviction of the two accused to that under Section 324 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The two accused have now approached this Court in appeal by special leave.2. The prosecution case is that on January 26, 1967 at about 7 p.m. , PW Jai Narain Sharma, an emplovee in the Sales Tax Office Hathras was going on cycle from Sasni to his vil-lage Birra. It was a night of full moon. Near a place called Qila, shots were fired from behind Jai Narain in his back. Jai Narain looked back and he saw the two accused coming on a cycle. Malkhan Singh was on the saddle of the cycle, while Munshi Lal wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1707; 1974CriLJ1176; (1974)4SCC503; 1974(6)LC342(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner challenges an order of detention passed against him by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.2. The petitioner was detained under an order dated February 9, 1972, on the ground that he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The particulars furnished to the petitioner show that on January 6, 1972 he and his associates committed theft of an electric copper wire and that on the 12th of the same month they indulged in a similar exercise. On the latter occasion, when challenged by the inhabitants of the area the petitioner and his associates hurled bombs at them.3. The affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, says that the petitioner was 'a notorious copper wire criminal'. It is urged that the petitioner had no opportunity to meet the allegation that he was 'notorious'. We see no substance in this contention because the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1256; 1974CriLJ929; (1974)4SCC754; 1974(6)LC249(SC)
Sarkaria J.1. The three appellants, who are brothers, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala for the murders of Sardara Singh Gian Singh and Harnek Singh and the appellants' own brother, Beldev Singh.2. Ajit Singh was convicted under Section 302, Penal Code for the murders of Baldev Singh and Sardara Singh and under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code for the murders of Harnek Singh and Gian Singh and sentenced to death on each count.3. Bhoor Singh was convicted under Section 302, Penal Code for the murders of Harnek Singh and Gian Singh and under Section 302, read with Section 34 Penal Code for the murders of Sardar Singh and Baldev Singh and sentenced' to death on each count. He was further convicted under Section 307, Penal Code and sentenced to 7 year' rigorous imprisonment.4. Kewal Singh was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code for the murders of Harnek Singh, Gian Singh and Baldev Singh and sentenced to death. He was further convicted u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC950; (1974)2SCC193; 1974(6)LC206(SC)
Mathew, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, in against an order passed by the High Court of Delhi refusing to grant a certificate to the appellant under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution to appeal to this Court.2. The High Court had dismissed in limine a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the property in question. The appellant thereafter applied to the High Court for a certificate under Article 133(1)(c). The High Court dismissed the application.3. The appellant filed a petition for special leave against the order dismissing the writ petition as also another against the order refusing to grant the certificate.4. this Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal against the order dismissing the writ petition, but granted special leave to appeal against the order refusing to grant the certificate.5. As already stated, the application to the High Court for grant of certificate was made only...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC887; (1974)2SCC190; 1974(6)LC208(SC)
Mathew, J.1. This is an appeal, by certificate, against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir whereby a Division Bench of the High Court allowed an appeal filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir from a decree for recovery of money in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.2. The appellant submitted a tender for supply of milk to the S.M.H.S. Hospital, Srinagar, in pursuance to a tender notice issued by the Superintendent of the Hospital at the rate of Rs. 15.90 per maund. This tender was accepted and a regular agreement was drawn up between the parties on May 17, 1961. One of the conditions in the agreement was that if milk become a controlled article during the period of the agreement, the contractor shall be paid at the controlled rate for the supply of the articles made by him. This is practically the same as paragraph 12 of the Tender Notice. In pursuance to the agreement, the appellant supplied milk to the hospital during the period of the agreement. The price ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1978; 1974CriLJ1378; (1975)3SCC133; 1974(6)LC338(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. These proceedings arise out of the murder of one Gurbachan Singh. The appellants Jagdip Singh and Gurbachan Kaur alias Bachni are his son and wife respectively. The learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, convicted Jagdip Singh under Section 302 and 201, Penal Code and sentenced him to death for the offence of murder. Bachni was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 as also under Section 201. She was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the former charge and like her son to four years' rigorous imprisonment on the latter charge, The order of conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh the appellants have brought this appeal against that judgment, by special leave.2. The relations between the deceased Gurbachan Singh and his son Jagdip Singh were highly strained. There were disputes between them concerning properties and in August, 1966 Jagdip Singh had assaulted Gurbachan Singh with a spear. Towards the begin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2297; (1974)2SCC590; 1974(6)LC212(SC)
Mathew, J.1. In this appeal filed in pursuance to a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution, the question for consideration is whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras was right in setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the first respondent here for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting a stage carriage permit to the appellant in the route in question.2. The appellant and the first respondent made applications for a permit for a stage carriage on the route Dindigul to Cumbam. There were 21 other applicants for the permit. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the first respondent was better qualified to get the permit than the appellant as it got more marks than the appellant in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 1298 (Home) dated April 28, 1956 and the Government Order No. 2265 (Home) dated August 9, 1958.3. The appellant file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1814; 1974CriLJ881; (1974)4SCC527; 1974(6)LC747(SC)
Khanna, J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by Asgar Ali for a writ of habeas corpus. The respondents impleaded in the petition are the District Magistrate, Burdwan, the Supetintendent, Burdwan Jail and the State of West Bengal.2. The District Magistrate, Burdwan passed an order on February 7, 1972 under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) for the detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The petitioner in pursuance of the detention order was taken into custedy on February 11, 1972. Report about the passing of the detention order was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Government and the said Government approved the detention order on February 18, 1972. On March 8, 1972 the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board, The State Government received a represent...
Tag this Judgment!