Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC753; (1975)4SCC62
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of his detention made under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 By the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas on the ground that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.2. The impugned order was made on March 4, 1974. It was founded on a simple, solitary incident of theft of anticre wire from the Railway installations between Gobardanga & Machhalandapur in Bongaon section of Eastern Railway. The report to the State Government tinder Section 3(3) of the Act was made by the District Magistrate on 5-3-1974. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 11-3-1974, and on the same day, the fact was reported by it to the Central Government. Pursuant to the order of detention, the petitioner was detained on 13-3-1974 and the grounds of detention were served on him the same day.3. The contention of Mr. F.S. Khare, app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1513; 1975CriLJ1327; (1975)4SCC108; 1975(7)LC234(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order dated 1st December, 1972 The sole ground on which the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (the detaining authority) relied has been set out in the 'ground' communicated which runs as follows : That on 11-10-1972 at about 61 55 hrs. you along with your associates being armed with bombs and other weapons victimised wagon No. NR-17393 Ex. BYO to KPD attached to running goods train in Ex-249 DN near the Booster Sub-station of Bom Dum Jn. R/s when the train slowed down for traffic restriction and committed theft in respect of tea chests. Train guard, RPF party challenged you and your associates when you hurled bombs towards the RPF party. RPF, RK SITARAM RAI FIRED ONE ROUND in self defence when you and your associates fled away leaving behind three chests of tea at the P. O.2. This case, when it had come up earlier for hearing created some doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether this single incident alone would have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC982; 1975CriLJ795; (1975)1SCC334; 1975(7)LC273(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of his detention made under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad. The order was made on May 10, 1973 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is founded on two incidents, the facts of which were incorporated in the grounds of detention. One was that on the night of 31-3-1973 at about 00.01 hrs. the petitioner along with his associates armed with firearms and other deadly weapons committed a daring dacoity in the house of Abdur Razak of village Chanderpara; Police Station Domkal, and the second was that on the same night at about 2 to 2-30 hrs., he along with his associates armed with firearms and other deadly weapons, committed dacoity in the house of one Amiruddin Mondal of village Sreerampur, P S. Jallangi and assaulted the inmates of the house and looted the property.2. Two F.I.Rs. with regard to these ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1508; 1975CriLJ1322; (1975)1SCC837; [1975]3SCR186
1. Dulal Roy, the petitioner challenges the order, dated August 21, 1972, of his detention made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). The order states that it is necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.2. The grounds of detention communicated to the detenue run as under:1. On 21.7.72 at 1 a.m. you with your associates Kartick Karmaker and others committed theft of Electric wire from Tower Nos. 23 and 24 situated near Dhangachha village and by such act you cause stoppage of electric supply which is essential for maintenance of supplies and services to the community, in Memari area and its vicinity.2. On 29-7-72 at 2 a.m. you with your associates committed theft of Tower Members from Tower Nos. 246, 247, 248 situated on the field near Dewandighi, P. S. Burdwan and by commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC572; 1975CriLJ460; (1975)3SCC705; 1975(7)LC167(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner challenges an order of detention passed under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, by the District Magistrate. Burdwan, on 14-9-1972 and prays for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.2. The grounds of detention stated:On 2 8-1972 at about 01.30 hrs. you along with your associates (1) Hamid Khan, son of Shri Hajmir Khan of No. 2 Chaidhowrah, Sripur, P S Jamuria, Dist. Burdwan (2) Mohammad Abbas, son of Shri Icheque Mian of Sripur Colliery, P.S. Jamuria, Dist. Burdwan and others committed theft in respect of H.D-B.C. overhead electric copper-wire measuring about 210 feet from the electric poles in between quarter Nos. 838 and 129 at traffic Colony, P. S. Asansol, Dist Burdwan. As a result of this theft, electricity supply in the whole of Traffic Colony area, PS. Asansol, Dist Burdwan was disrupted for a few hours cansing such inconvenience to the people of the locality.On 19-8-72 at abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC571; 1975CriLJ459; (1975)3SCC527; 1975(7)LC181(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of an order of detention passed under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Intern 1 Security Act, 1971 by the District Magistrate, Nadia on 15 3 1973 In pursuance to the Order, the petitioner was detained on 19-3-1973 The grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu. The petitioner sent a representation and that was received by the State Government on 30-3-1973. The State Government placed the case of the detenu before the Advisory Board on 31-3-1973. The representation of the petitioner was considered by the Government and it was rejected on 4 4 1973 but the same was forwarded to the Advisory Board The Advisory Board submitted its report stating that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner on 10-5-1973. The detention order was confirmed by Government on 15-5-1973.2. The ground of detention stated:That on 24-1-1973 night between 01-00 hrs. to 02 00 hrs. you along ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1069; (1975)1SCC343; [1975]3SCR160
1. Civil Appeals Nos. 354 and 1251 of 1969 are by certificate against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 514 of 1966 and 1935 of 1962 respectively in which by majority the provisions of Section 3 read with Sch. 1 and Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, which were challenged, were held to be valid. Following the Full Bench Judgment in the above two Civil Writ Petitions. Civil Writ Petition No. 2310 of 1965 was also disposed of by a Division Bench of that High Court. Against that Judgment Civil Appeal No. 1222 of 1969 is by certificate.2. In all these appeals the places of worship to which the impugned provisions have been made applicable were situated in the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union. After the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 when the said territories were merged, the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was made applicable to the places of worship situated in the areas to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC783; 1975CriLJ645; (1975)3SCC820; 1975(7)LC187(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. When special leave was granted in this appeal, the Court had limited it to the question of sentence to be imposed upon the appellant2. There were two accused in the case. The appellant was the first accused. The charge against them was that they murdered Manibai Laxman Karva and thus committed an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the alternative the appellant alone was charged under Section 302 for committing the murder of Manibai.3. The prosecution case was as follows : In Haji Kassam Chal there were residential quarters The deceased Manibai, one Luiza and the appellant were resident in the quarters. The deceased and Luiza were carrying on trade in illicit liquor. The appellant used to supply them with illicit liquor. About a month before the incident, i.e., on 14.7.1972, a woman customer came to the room to take drink. The appellant and the second accused happened to be there at that time and the appellant misbehaved towards...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC761; [1975(30)FLR177]; (1975)3SCC501; [1975]3SCR157; 1975(1)SLJ218(SC); 1975(7)LC154(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave by K.K. Wahi and two others is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court affirming on appeal the decision of the learned single Judge whereby petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by nine petitioners, including the three appellants, to challenge an order about the cancellation of a penal by the Railway Board was only partly allowed.2. The Senior Personnel Officer, Northern Railway notified on May 11, 1970 the names of nine writ petitioners as having been selected for the posts of computors in the grade of Rs. 335-485. Prior to that date, four of the petitioners were officiating as computers on ad hoc basis. The fifth petitioner was officiating as head draftsman and the remaining four petitioners were working as draftsmen. The post of computer was a selection post. The procedure for filling of such a post is given in paragraphs 213 to 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Paragraph 216, which is material for o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC573; 1975CriLJ461; (1975)3SCC700; 1975(7)LC249(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The appellant, convicted of murder of Satya Devi, a youngwoman, and her child Surjit Kumar, by throwing a hand grenade into the house of Mohinder Pal P.W. 7, husband of the deceased lady, was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court. Of course, he has also been convicted for offences under Sections 325 and 323 for causing injuries to Mohinder Pal aforesaid and a few other.2. The substance of the prosecution case is that P.W. 7 was a grocer and cultivator The accused was a neighbouring cultivator and had a dispute over the boundary between the two fields with P.W. 7. A quarrel had arisen on this score between the two and this led to grudge borne by the accused against P.W. 7. It is further alleged, as motive for the offence, that the accused used to buy grocery from P.W. 7's shop on credit but that the former defaulted to pay and when pressed, picked, up a quarrel. These dual motives by them...
Tag this Judgment!