Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1512; (1975)4SCC113; 1975(7)LC353(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The appellant is the owner of a truck UPZ 3653. The vehicle was seized by the police in connection with an offence under Sections 399 and 402, I.P.C. on December 20/21, 1973. For the release of the truck, the appellant moved the Sub. Divisional Magistrate who had jurisdiction, but that application was rejected. Subsequently, he moved in revision, the Sessions Court for the same relief whereupon the Sessions Judge reported the case for decision of the High Court under Section 438, Cr.P.C. The High Court, after hearing the parties, directed release of the truck on the appellant furnishing a cash security of Rs. 50,000/ and a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/ . This order is attacked in the present appeal.2. After bearing counsel, on a suggestion from Court, both sides agree that the interests of justice (that is, the availability of the vehicle at the time of of the trial for purposes of evidence) require that the truck be released to the petitioner on conditi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1121; (1975)1SCC737; [1975]3SCR254
1. This is a group of appeals founded on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Articles 132(1) and 133(1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution. The appeals arise out of a common judgment dated November 18, 1968 rendered by the High Court in a batch of 152 writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Those petitions were filed by liquor contractors and hoteliers to challenge the demands made upon them by the Department of Excise and Revenue, Government of Punjab.2. The appellants are mostly retail vendors of country liquor holding licences for the sale of liquor in specified vends. Those licences were granted to them on acceptance of their bids in the auctions held by the Excise Department, Government of Punjab. The 'licence fees' realised through bids made in the auction are said to be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 29 crores.3. In Civil Appeals Nos. 485 and 2205 of 1969, the appellants held licences for the retail sale of foreign liquor for con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1234; (1975)GLR418; (1975)0GLR40; (1975)2SCC175; [1975]3SCR220
1. Questions relating to the Constitutional validity of the different provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (Bombay Act 59 of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporations Act) as amended by Gujarat Acts No. 8 of 1968 and No. 5 of 1970 arise for determination in these appeals and the connected writ petitions. The Corporations Act was enacted by the Bombay legislature in December 1949 for the establishment of municipal corporations in the cities of Ahmedabad and Poona. It was applied to Ahmedabad on July 1, 1950.2. The assessment of properties to property tax in Ahmedabad was made under the Corporations Act by making entries in the assessment books in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Taxation Rules set out in Chapter VIII of Schedule A of the Corporations Act. A separate section of the assessment book was prepared by the Commissioner of the Corporation for each official year in respect of the assessment of property tax on certain kinds of pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1516; 1975CriLJ1329; (1975)4SCC115; 1975(7)LC430(SC)
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer. J.1. The order of detention challenged before us is dated 27th February, 1973. The subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate of Nadia, who directed the detention, is based upon three criminal adventures of the petitioner dated 8th November 1971. 9th December 1971 and 25th August 1972.2. The incidents themselves look rather serious but also state, having regard to the long gap between the occurrences and the order of detention. One should have expected some proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied on and the satisfaction arrived at. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that unexplained and long delay will be fatal to the plea of subjective satisfaction. In the present case, counsel for the State. Shri G.S. Chatterjee, took time to furnish an explanation as to why there was such a long delay for the District Magistrate to pass the order of detention. Unfortunately, we are no wiser to-day than at the previous hearing. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC751; 1975CriLJ612; (1975)3SCC557; 1975(7)LC179(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of his detention made under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, by the District Magistrate, Howrah. The order states that the detention has been made with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The order is founded on two incidents, the facts of which were incorporated in the grounds of detention and are as under1. On 19-2-1973 at 20.07 hrs. at Beleaguer Railway Station you along with your associates being armed with deadly weapons like bombs, daggers etc. stopped train No. 72 Dn. in between KM Post No. 10/20 to 10/31 and committed theft in respect of 13 pegs by breaking open the wagons. On being challenged by the R P.F. Party you and your associates attacked them by pelting stones and hurling bombs in order to take away the stolen properties by scaring them away. The R.P.F. Party warned against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1496; 1975CriLJ1233; (1975)4SCC59; 1975(7)LC198(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. Abdul Gaffer, petitioner challenges the order dated 18-5-1972, of his detention made under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The detention order states that the detention was necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The impugned order was passed on these grounds:1. On 18-7-71 at 02.15 hrs. you along with your associates being armed with deadly weapons like daggers etc. committed theft in respect of D.O plates from the Rly. Yard near Tikiapara Rly. Over Bridge. Being challenged by the person on duty R.P.F. party you and your associates attacked them by pelting stooes causing injury to the R.P.F. Party. The R.P.F. had to open fire when you and your associates fled away leaving behind 3 (three) pieces of D.O. Plates. In consequence of theft of Rly. property running of the train services were disrupted.2. On 25-11-71 at 14.15 hrs in between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2164; 1975LabIC1590; (1975)ILLJ520SC; (1975)4SCC67; [1975]3SCR201
1. The petitioners are Assistants in Grade IV (Class II Non-gazetted) of the Central Secretariat Service (briefly the Service) and have been working in the various Ministries of the Government of India. They were appointed as Assistants during the period between 1944 and 1954. Their next promotional post is now that of Section Officer (Class II, Gazetted). They have raised in this Writ Petition the question of their seniority and challenged the validity of the Office Memodandum of 7th September, '1971, issued by the first Respondent fixing zones for promotion to the grade of Section Officer on the basis or ranks assigned in the Civil List of 1962 for the grade of Assistant on the ground of being in contravention of the Office Memorandum of June 22, 1949, of the Ministry of Home Affairs. They also challenge the validity of Rule 18(1) of the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 (briefly the Rules) in so far as it is construed to protect the seniority determined prior to the commenceme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC781; 1975CriLJ643; (1975)1SCC522; [1975]3SCR197
1. This application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution arises out of an order of detention made on June 25, 1973, by the District Magistrate Burdwan under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was made in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The grounds on which the said order is based are as follows :(1) On 20-3-73 night at about 01.00 hrs. you with your other associates committed theft of ball bearings and wheels of the bucket carriages of the rope-way lilies near Haristipur village and the supply of sand to the collieries was suspended. By such act you adversely affected the raising of supply of coal from the collieries which is essential for human consumption and for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.(2) On 21-3-73 at about 03.00 hrs. you wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC606; 1975CriLJ585; (1975)1SCC311; [1975]3SCR193; 1975(7)LC202(SC)
1. A single act of outrageous violence in a running train on February 16, 1973 by an armed gang, of which the petitioner was alleged to be a member, persuaded the District Magistrate of Nadia to direct his detention under Sub-section (1)(a)(ii) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act XXVI of 1971) (hereinafter called the MISA, for short). The subsequent statutory requirements have been fulfilled impeccably and the only major submission of the petitioner is that on merits, he is not guilty, that a case charge-sheeted against him has ended in a discharge and that a single incident is insufficient to constitute 'a stream of tendency' warranting preventive detention. Most of the submissions urged have no force. The fact that the petitioner was discharged by a court for the same crime does no bear on the power to detain, nor are we impressed with the other arguments urged before us. Learned counsel Sri Malviya, appearing amicus curiae, strenuously contended that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC612; 1975CriLJ591; (1975)4SCC814
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The petitioner challenges the Constitutionality of the Army Act with specific reference to certain provisions, particularly Section 123, and according to him, Article 33 does not cover ex-servicemen who are not serving members of the defence forces. Mr. Mahajan, appearing for the petitioner, argues that his client falls in this category and therefore cannot be tried by court martials. As the case proceeded, counsel chose to pray for permission to withdraw the three cases. We permit him to withdraw them.2. Independently of the petitioner withdrawing the proceedings instituted by him in this Court, the Additional Solicitor-General, appearing for the Union of India, states, at the suggestion of the Court, that his client may not have any objection to making two ameliorative gestures: firstly, acting within the ambit of Regulation 392(k) of the Defence Services Regulations the concerned military authority may be inclined to direct that the petitioner be not kept in ...
Tag this Judgment!