Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1488; 1974CriLJ1089; 1974MhLJ473(SC); (1974)4SCC610
Chandrachud, J.1. The second respondent who is the wife of the appellant filed against him an application for maintenance under Section 488, CrPC. The application was founded on two grounds : one, that the appellant was neglecting and refusing to maintain her and two, that he had contracted a second marriage with one Kamala. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakoli, dismissed that application holding that though the appellant had taken a second wife he had neither neglected nor refused to maintain the second respondent. The second respondent filed a revision application against that order in the Sessions Court, Bhandara. Taking the view that the fact that the appellant had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the second respondent was sufficient to entitle her to an order for maintenance, the learned Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court. The reference was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC855; 1974CriLJ739; (1975)3SCC139; 1974(6)LC365(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant who was accused No. 3 in the trial court was put up for trial along with three others for an offence under Section 325 of the Penal Code on the charge that on July 3, 1966 he had assaulted one Gabu with a lathi. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Glass, Kalol, acquitted all the accused but in an appeal filed by the State, the High Court of Gujarat set aside the order of acquittal in regard to the appellant and two others. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 325, Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for one year.2. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was largely based on the supposed contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate fell into the error of attaching undue importance to trifling contradictions and in relying on contradictions which were not properly proved. The High Court was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC852; 1974CriLJ737; (1974)4SCC586; [1974]3SCR847
M.H. Beg, J.1.The Special Judge of Greater Bombay tried the appealiant, a Sub Inspector in the Railway Production Force, together with three other members of the Force, serving under him, on charges for offences punishable under Section 120B and 161 Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged that the appellant and the Rakshaks serving under him at Bhusaval Central Railway Station had conspired to extort money from Shivaji Ogale, P.W.2, a merchant owning property and goods estimated by him at Rs. 1,50,000/-, and paying Income-tax and Sales-tax. The appellant is alleged to have stopped Shivaji from removing his goods from the goods yard on the ground that the truck brought by him was parked at the wrong place. The appellant, with the Help of his Rakshaks,) was said to have threatened Kalandar Khan, P.W. 3, the driver of the truck, and to have actually handcuffed him and tied him with a rope and taken him to the appellant's office a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)3SCC475
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J.1. learned Counsel for the parties have reported that the parties have entered into settlement. It has been agreed that the plaintiff-respondents would be entitled, out of the lands in dispute, to the lands comprised in items Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and land measuring 2.71 acres out of 3.71 acres comprised in item No 9, of the properties set out in the Schedule to the plaint in O.S. No. 29 of 1960. The plaintiff respondents would deliver possession of one acre of land out of item No. 9 In addition to that the plaintiff-respondents would handover possession of the lands comprised in items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10 to the defendants-appellants. Out of the amount deposited by the plaintiff-respondents in the trial court, the defendants-appellants would be entitled to withdraw Rs. 4,500/-. No party would have any claim for mesne profits against the other till the date of this order. The plaintiff respondents would handover possession of the land which is now b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1158; 1974CriLJ814; (1974)4SCC509; [1974]3SCR827; 1974(6)LC397(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1.The High Court of Delhi had confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 353/332/333 of the Indian Penal Cod:, and a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count, and also to be fine of Rs. 400/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to four months further rigorous imprisonment under Section 333 Indian Penal Code. The appellant has come to this Court by grant of special leave.2. It was alleged that the appellant had, on 17-3-1967, at 4,30 pm., in Rameshwar Nagar, obstructed Sarvshri Rattan Singh, Maharaj Singh and Raghbir Singh, Section Inspectors, and Dunger, a Peon of the Delhi Municipal.Corporation, when they went to seize a buffalo belonging to the appellant in the discharge of their duty to realise the milk tax from him, and struck Rattan Singh on the nose with the result that it bled and was also fractured.3. The Main contention on behalf of the appellant is that the attempt to realize Rs. 153.75 as arrears of milk tax together with Rs. 10/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)174
Hegde, J. - These appeals by certificate raise a common question of law. We shall refer to that question presently. The respondent-assessee was assessed to sales tax for the year 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 in February, 1961. At time of the said assessment, he was granted certain exemptions by the Sales Tax Officer. On an examination of the records, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax came to the conclusion that the exemptions granted by Sales Tax Officer were impermissible under law. Therefore, he started suo moto revision proceedings sometimes in 1963. After giving an opportunity to the assessee to represent his case he revised the order of assessment by his order dated May 20, 1965. That order was challenged by the assessee before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal opined that the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax revised the order of assessment in exercise of his power under Rule 33 of the Rules framed under the Kerala Sales Tax Act of 1925. Followi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)175
Sarkaria J. - This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts :On receiving information that some package containing smuggled goods had been left by a person in the premises of M/s. Sha Rupaji Rikhabdas at 98, Narayana Mudali Lane, Madras-1 and that these packages were about to be despatched to Bangalore for disposal, a posse of Preventive Officers of the Customs House went to the said shop on June 4, 1962. They found ten packages in that shop. Baboothmull of M/s. Sha Rupaji Rikhabdas was present there. The officers questioned, Baboothmull about those packages. Baboothmull replied that he was not the owner of those packages and that somebody next to his shop had left them outside the premises and since that person had not returned for a considerable time, he got them removed into the shop. Baboothmull was unable to throw any light with regard to the owner or the contents of the packages.2. After getting a consent letter from Baboothmull, the officers opened the packages ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC898; 1974CriLJ751; (1974)4SCC611; 1974(6)LC356(SC)
Beg, J.1. The appellants Bhagwandas Keshwani and Vishnu Kumar before us by grant of special leave were charged under Sections 120B, 420 and 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code. Keshwani was also charged under Section 5, Sub-section (2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were acquitted of charges under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C. The Special Judge who tried their case convicted Keshwani and Vishnu Kumar under Section 120B and under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The learned Judge convicted and sentenced Keshwani to one year's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The sent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC859; 1975CriLJ545; 2003(90)ECC347; 1985(5)LC2284(SC); 1983(13)ELT1546(SC); (1974)2SCC544; [1974]3SCR833
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts:2. On receiving information that some packages containing smuggled goods had been left by a person in the premises of M/s. Sha Rupaji Rikhabdas at 98, Narayana Mudali Lane, Madras-1 and that these packages were about to be despatched to Bangalore for disposal, a posse of Preventive Officers of the Customs House went to the said shop on June 4, 1962. They found ten packages in that shop. Baboothmull of M/s. Sha Rupaji Rikhabdas was present there. The officers questioned Baboothmull about those packages. Baboothmull replied that he was not the owner of those packages and that somebody next to his shop had left them outside the premises and since that person had not returned for a considerable time, he got them removed into the shop. Baboothmull was unable to throw any light with regard to the owner or the contents of the packages.3. After getting a consent letter from Baboothmull, the officers opened the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC849; [1974]94ITR479(SC); (1974)4SCC415; [1974]3SCR820; 1974(6)LC476(SC)
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1.The two petitioners have been assessed to Agricultural Income-tax by the State of Kerala under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950(hereinafter called the Act) as amended by the Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1970. The assessment is made at the rate of 75 per cent of their total income. They challenge the assessment on the ground that Section 2(hh) and (kk) and Clauses (2) and (3) of Part I to the Schedule of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1970 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. It will facilitate appreciation of the facts and the Constitutional question in this case if the taxing provisions are noticed at this stage.3. The Agricultural Income-tax Act was passed in 1950. In the beginning, the Act was known as the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act. Later as a result of the States reorganisation, the Act was renamed simply as Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. According to the preamble, the Act was made to prov...
Tag this Judgment!