Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2279; 1974CriLJ1308; (1975)3SCC339
M.H. Beg, J.1. A common question of law arises, on similar facts, in each of the eleven Habeas Corpus petitions which have to be allowed as a result of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Pradip Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal W.P. 961 of 1973, etc. D/-29-4-1974 : reported in : 1974CriLJ1476 .2. The hearing of the petitions now before me was adjourned to await the judgment of the Constitution Bench which has held that, in view of the provisions of Section 14, Sub-section (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a second detention order cannot be made without fresh facts after a revocation or expiry of the first detention order. The question considered by the Constitution Bench was whether a revocation of an order by the detaining authorities made because of the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 266 of 1972 - Shambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal. : [1974]1SCR1 , on the assumption that the revoked...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2281; 1974CriLJ1310; (1975)3SCC825; [1975]1SCR485
M.H. Beg, J.1. We propose to decide the two criminal appeals before us by special leave by a common judgment. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant in each case is appropriate or deserved. Special leave was granted in each of the two appeals solely on the question of propriety of sentence awarded. It is urged before us that the lesser penalty of life imprisonment was enough, in the circumstances of each of the two cases, to meet the ends of justice,2. The first case before us is of Francis alias Ponnan v. State of Kerala, where the facts were : The murdered man, Pappachan. with some others had attacked Pandoth Joseph, P.W. 3, the brother of the appellant on 28-11-1971, and P. P. George, P.W. 4, the brother-in-law of the appellant, on 23-12-1971, at about 10 p.m. On each occasion, a F.I.R. was lodged and the injured had to be sent to Hospital. In the second incident, George, P.W. 4, the brother-in-law of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)4SCC192; [1975]1SCR493
M.H. Beg, J.1. There are twenty two appeals by Special leave together with thirteen connected special leave petitions involving a common question of law for decision before us. This question arises out of three approved schemes, which may be called the Anekal Scheme dated 15-4-1959, the Gulbarga Scheme dated 18-2-1960, and the Bangalore Scheme dated 7-6-1960, for the nationalisation under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), of transport services on certain routes lying within, the State of Mysore. But, parts of these, intra-state routes overlap inter-state routes over which private transporters were granted permits and then their renewals by the State Transport authorities to ply their vehicles. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation objects to these permits in so far as they cover overlapping portions of intra-state routes. The common question of law which arises may be formulated as follows:Can a permit be granted to an Inter-State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1005; (1975)3SCC30; [1975]1SCR483; 1974(6)LC460(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. The petitioner in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the order of detention dated 15 March. 1973.2. The order is : 'in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 'hereinafter referred to as the Act' directing the petitioner to be detained'.3. The petitioner challenges the order on the ground that it is the duty of the authority to fix the period of detention after carefully examining the circumstances requiring detention. The petitioner submits that the authorities have bodily lifted the section fixing the maximum period without applying their mind as to the period of detention.4. This Court in Fagu Shaw etc. v. The State of West Bengal : 1974CriLJ486 held that the maximum period mentioned in Section 13 of the Act as amended by Section 6(d) of the Defence of India Act, 1971 is a Constitutionally valid provision.5. That section states that the maximum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1373; (1974)2SCC301; 1974(6)LC448(SC)
Dwivedi, J.1. All these appeals now raise a common question of law and are being decided by a common judgment.2. All the appellants were operators of State carriages in the State of Rajasthan. They held regular permits for various routes in the State.3. The State has a Road Transport Corporation. It is called the Raj. State Road Transport Corporation. It was constituted on October 1, 1964 under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It has a General Manager.4. Section 19(2)(c) of the aforesaid Act empowers the Corporation to acquire routes for plying buses and to exclude private operators therefrom. In 1956 Parliament inserted Chapter IV A in the Motor Vehicles Act for acquiring routes. Section 68 is to be found in that Chapter. It enables the State Govt. to make rules to carry into effect the provisions of the Chapter. The State of Rajasthan has made certain rules under this section. Rules 3 and 4 are material for our purpose. Rule 3 provides that a scheme under Section 68C of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1579; (1974)2SCC521
1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against a judgment of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court declaring arbitration agreement contained in certain contracts between the parties to be invalid on the ground that the contracts were illegal under Section 15, Sub-section (3A) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Forward Contracts Act).2. The appellants and the respondents were both at all material times members of the East India Jute & Hessian Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Exchange). On 13th June, 1969, the appellants entered into two contracts with the respondents agreeing to purchase 12,00,000 yards of hessian cloth at the price of Rupees 70.50P. per hundred yards and 6,00,000 yards of hessian cloth at the price of Rs. 70/ - per hundred yards on the terms and condition's set out in the respective contract notes which were in the printed contract form prescribed in Appendix IV to . the bye-laws of the Exchange. Thes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1290; 1974CriLJ1044; (1975)3SCC16
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1.These appeals are by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court confirming the conviction and sentence passed on Rajendraprasad Devidas Mishra A-1 and Raghunandan Trivedi A-2 under Section 161 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A-1 was also convicted under Section 212, I.P.C. The two accused, along with Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar A-3, were tried for offences under Sections 120-B, 161,201, 212, 217, 218, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but A-3 was acquitted of all the charges and A-1 and A-2 were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. A-1 was also convicted by the Trial Court under Section 218, I.P.C. but his conviction and sentence under that section was set aside. The High Court in an appeal against acquittal of A-3, partly allowed the appeal and convicted him for offences under Section 161 read with Section 34, I.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1631; 1974LabIC1103; (1976)IILLJ115SC; (1975)3SCC76; [1975]1SCR449
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions and appeals are broadly divisible into two groups, one group consisting of Writ Petition No. 385 of 1969 and Civil Appeals Nos. 601-605 and 954-955 of 1972 and the other consisting of Writ Petition No. 218 of 1970. We shall first state the facts in regard to Writ Petition No. 385 of 1969 and Civil Appeals Nos. 601-605 and 954-955 of 1972 and then proceed to deal with Writ Petition No. 218 of 1970 which raises a slightly different dispute.2. Writ Petition No. 385 of 1969 and Civil Appeals Nos. 601-605 and 954-955 of 1972 concern a dispute which has been going on since the last over fifteen years in regard to absorption and integration of Supervisors of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the Engineering Service of the reorganised State of Andhra Pradesh. It would be convenient to start the narration of facts with a description of the organisation and structure of the Engineering Service in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, for the petitioners/app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1570; 1974CriLJ1035; (1974)4SCC764; [1975]1SCR409
Y.V. Chandrachud, J. 1. On the morning of June 7, 1970 in the Subzi Mandi at Badaun, U.P., a person called Sahib Datta Mal alias Munimji was shot dead. Ganga Ram and his three sons, Ram Swamp, Somi and Subhash were prosecuted in connection with that incident. Ram Swarup was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Badaun, under Section 302, Panel Code, and was sentenced to death. Ganga Ram was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under the Arms Act and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. Somi and Subhash were acquitted of all the charges as also was Ganga Ram of a charge under Section 307 of the Penal Code in regard to an alleged knife-attack on one Nanak Chand.2. The High Court of Allahabad has acquitted Ganga Ram and Ram Swarup in an appeal filed by them and has dismissed the appeal filed by the State Government challenging the acquittal of Somi and Subhash. In this appeal by special leave we ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1111; (1974)4SCC835; [1975]1SCR440; [1974]34STC103(SC); 1974(6)LC470(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The question for decision in these cases is about the liability to sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act of 'watery coconuts'. The Act contains four schedules. The First Schedule contains goods in respect of which a single point sales tax only is leviable under Section 5(2)(a). The Second Schedule contains goods in respect of which a single point purchase tax only is leviable under Section 5(2)(b). The Third Schedule contains declared goods in respect of which a single point tax only is leviable under Section 6. The Fourth Schedule contains goods exempted from tax under Section 8. By an amendment made in 1961, there was till 1963 only one entry, 'coconuts', in the Third Schedule and the Fourth Schedule contained 'tender coconuts which are useful only for drinking purposes' which were exempted from tax. An explanation to the Third Schedule read as follows :The expression 'coconuts' in this Schedule means fresh or dried coconuts, shelled or unshel...
Tag this Judgment!