Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1516; 1974CriLJ1062; (1974)4SCC560; [1974]3SCR799
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Mr. Frank Anthony arguing the case for the accused, in this appeal by special leave, has put forward four main contentions against the appellant's is conviction, namely, (a) that the prosecution is invalid for want of competent sanction; (b) that the investigation is not merely illegal but has in consequence inflicted serious prejudice on the accused; (c) that the non-examination of key witnesses, like the Deputy Superintendent of Police, should have driven the court to draw an adverse inference fatal to the case, and the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices or quasi-accomplices should not have been the foundation for a conviction, and (d) that the Court had drawn a presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, although there was no warrant for it in the present case, The (sic) having been one under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act2. A, brief statement of the facts will lead to a better appreciation of the arguments urged T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1212; (1974)4SCC635; [1974]3SCR808; 1974(6)LC380(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1.This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by the Bar Council of Delhi refusing to enroll the petitioner as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (Act 25 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Since the order was passed by the Delhi Bar Council after reference to the Bar Council of India under Section 26(2) of the Act, both the Bar Councils are impleaded as the first and the second respondents respectively. The third respondent is the Union of India in the Ministry of Law since the petitioner takes an additional ground that Section 26(2) of the Act is in conflict with Section 48A of the same Act.2. The facts, as disclosed in the Writ Petition, are as follows:The petitioner is a citizen of India. Under the laws then prevailing he was granted sanad by the highest court Ijias Thikana Khetri on 22nd November, 1936. The petitioner states that Thikana Khetri was a small native state having jurisdiction to make laws...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1161; 1974CriLJ817; (1974)4SCC573; [1974]3SCR813
P.K. Goswami, J.1.This habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Varanasi, of 3rd September, 1973, whereby .the petitioner was detained under Sub-section (iii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (briefly the Act). The order has been passed 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community'. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 7th September, 1973. Leaving out the prefatory and descriptive portions, the grounds of detention may be set out as under:Ground No. 3 : 'That you and your other associates have been charge sheeted by Mohania Police on 28-11-66 for the offence punishable under Section 7 E.C. Act and 125 DIR 1962 and the case is still pending in the Court, Magistrate of Bhabhua (Bihar) as the proceedings have been stayed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1146; 1974CriLJ802; (1974)4SCC522; [1974]3SCR794; 1974(6)LC401(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, dismissing appellant's petition made Under Section 561-A of the CrPC. The material facts are these:2. On June 15, 1969, a report was lodged in Police Station, Tilak Mark, New Delhi, by one Munshi Ram alleging that he was employed as a Driver of bus, DLP 3867, belonging to Indraj Singh and Sukh Lal of Chirag Delhi. On June 13, 1969 at 6 p.m., he stopped the bus at Mathura Road to talk to one Devi Singh son of Ganesh Lal. Devi Singh invited the informant and his companions, Mahinder Singh Conductor and Sher Singh helper, to soft-drinks at a nearby shop. Leaving the bus unattended, they proceeded to that shop. In the meantime, Jehan Singh appellant, Sharma, R.K. Pathak and Anr. man of 'stout-build' got into the vehicle. The stout man took the steering wheel, and all the four drove away in the bus despite the protests of the informant and his companions. Munshi R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1975CriLJ569; (1975)3SCC170
ORDERP. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. It is reported that the petitioner-detenu has been released. His writ petition has therefore become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1214; 1974CriLJ917; (1974)4SCC504; [1974]3SCR789; 1974(6)LC394(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Milan Banik petitioner was ordered by District Magistrate Burdwan to be detained Under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In pursuance of the detention order, the petitioner was arrested on July 23, 1973. The petitioner has now filed this petition through jail under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus.2. After making the detention order on June 1, 1973 the D.M. sent report to the State Government about his having made the detention order along with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars. The State Government approved the detention order on June 12, 1973. The petitioner at the time of his arrest on July 23, 1973 was served with the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1300; [1974(29)FLR97]; 1974LabIC841; (1974)4SCC656; [1974]3SCR760
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The facts are similar in all these cases. We propose to deal with Civil Appeal No. 2271 of 1968. The decision there will dispose of the other appeals.2. The first respondent, a company registered under the Companies Act, filed a Writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat, In that petition it impugned the provisions of Sections 3, 6A and 7 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as (the Act) and Section 13 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the First Amendment Act) and Rules 3 and 4 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as unConstitutional and prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction against the respondents in the writ petition to desist from enforcing the direction in the notice dated August 2, 1962 of respondent No. 3 to the writ petition requiring the petitioner-1st r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1174; (1974)2SCC245
Bhagwati. J,1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against an order dated 28th May, 1973 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana summarily rejecting a writ petition tiled by the appellant for quashing and setting aside an order dated 19th May, 1973 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal against an order dated 29th March, 1971 made by the State Transport Commissioner Punjab. The dispute in the appeal relates to Malerkotla Barnala Bhatinda route situate in the Pepsu territories of the State of Punjab. The appellant is a company engaged in the business of carrying passengers by motor vehicle for hire or reward and at all material times it held two stage carriage permits, by each for a return trip, on Malerkotla Barnala Bhatinda route. It was found that passenger traffic on Malerkotla Barnala Bhatinda route was very heavy and two return trips, for which two stage carriage permits had been issued to the appellant, were not adequate to meet the need of the pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1317; 1974LabIC858; (1974)ILLJ513SC; (1975)3SCC111; [1974]3SCR754; 1974(6)LC331(SC)
ORDERIn pursuance of Government's instructions contained is Deputy Secretary, Transport's D.O. letter No. 13060 S/XXXA-10/18/M/59, dated September 5, 1967 the following reversion?, transfers and postings are hereby ordered : -(1) Sri R.S. Sial, officiating General Manager, U.P. Government Roadways, Aligarh, is reverted to his substantive post of Assistant General Manager, and posted at Luck-now as Assistant General Manager (Rural) vice Sri V.P. Gupta transferred.8. Perusal of the above order shows that it contains no adverse remarks against the appellant, nor can it be said that any stigma attaches to the appellant because of that order. At the time the above order was made the substantive rank of the appellant was that of Assistant General Manager. The post of General Manager which was held by the appellant was only in an officiating capacity. The appellant had no vested right to retain that post. In case the authorities concerned came to the conclusion that the appellant should not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1870; 1974MhLJ894(SC); (1975)4SCC532; 1974(6)LC289(SC)
Beg. J.1. The only question in this appeal by special leave granted by us last week is whether the application dated the 8th February, 1973, praying for the setting aside of the abatement of the Second Appeal No. 1110 of 1968 and for condoning the delay in applying for the setting aside of the abatement, filed in the High Court of Bombay, should have been dismissed outright without issuing notice to the respondents, by a single-word order, 'rejected' passed on 8-3-1973.2. After having been taken through the application, we think that the applicant had stated matters which required to be satisfactorily controverted before such an application could be dismissed. Even in cases where such an application is dismissed for some patent infirmity, the Court concerned should, in our opinion, give its reasons for the dismissal. Such orders are judicial orders subject to a final appeal, for exceptional reasons, to this Court. We think that, in a case where such an application is dismissed without ...
Tag this Judgment!