Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2327; 1976CriLJ1873; (1976)1SCC398; 1976(8)LC131(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment dated September 9, 1974 of the High Court of Bombay confirming the judgment of the Additional Sessions judge. Sangil convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code arid sentencing him to death. The appellant was also convicted under Section 201 and was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years for that offence2. Dhyanu, the father of the appellant, and the deceased Prahlad Jadhav were real brothers. They had partitioned their joint family properties long before the date of the incident but it appears that in spite of the partition there were disputes between the brothers regarding certain properties. On the morning of November 9, 1973 Prahlad Jadhav went to his field with his wives Dhondubai and Yashodabi and his infant daughter Malan. At about 2 p.m. a neighbour called Babu Govinda Jadhav heard cries coming from Prahlad's land and he therefore ran in that direction. While standing on a Bandh, he saw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC173; 1976CriLJ192; (1976)1SCC385; [1976]2SCR753; 1976(8)LC74(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the only point that arises for consideration is whether the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, in the High Court against the order of acquittal of the appellant under Section 465 read with Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code was competent under the law.2. The accused (appellant) secured an appointment of Senior Operator Trainee in the Bhilai Steel Project by submitting two forged certificates. The first certificate was regarding this passing the Bachelor of Science examination with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, and 2nd Division from the University of Sagar. The second document was an attested copy of his Matriculation certificate in proof of age where his date of birth was shown as August 21, 1941.3. The minimum educational qualification for the post was that the candidate must be a Science Graduate of a recognised University with any two of the three subjects Mathematices, Physics and Chemistry and the age limit was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC820; 1977CriLJ603; (1976)4SCC337
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant, Ram Kishan, and two others were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, on the charge, mainly, that they had committed the murder of one Ram Chand. In appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant on the charge of murder but altered the conviction and sentence of the two others. The appellant filed a petition for special leave in this Court but leave was granted to him only on the question as to the nature of the offence committed by him. Thus, the only question which this appeal raises is whether the appellant can justifiably be convicted of a lesser offence than the one under Section 302.2. Mr. Singh who appears on behalf of the appellant drew our attention to certain portions of the judgment of the High Court and con tended that it is clear from the findings recorded by the High Court that the appellant had no intention to cause the death of RamChand and in that view, the offence wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC772; [1976]102ITR12(SC); (1976)4SCC776; 1976(8)LC28(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. These two appeals, brought on certificates granted under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arise out of a common judgment of the Calcutta High Court disposing of two reference, one under Sub-section (1) and the other under Sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Act. The appellants are members of an undivided family governed by the Dayabhange School of Hindu Law and were assessed as a Hindu Undivided family for the assessment year 1947-49, the relevant previous year being the Bengali Year 1354 which corresponds to the period from April 14, 1947 to April 13, 1949. A sum of Rs. 1,96,045/- was added by the Income-tax Officer to the income of the undivided family in the aforesaid assessment year as income from agricultural activities carried on in Pakistan. The land out of which this income had accrued fell within the territory of Pakistan on the partition of India in 1947. It is not disputed at this stage that following the amendment in 1950 of the definitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC232; (1976)2SCC868; 1976(8)LC33(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court summarily dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the present appellants.2. Mahant Gurnarain, Respondent No. 5, owned 182 tandard acres and 11 units of land in several villages in the districts of Ambala, Hoshiarpur and Jullundur. The Special Collector, Chandigarh, Respondent No. 4 herein, by an order dated 3.3.1961, declared an area of 132 standard acres, 111/2 units, out of the aforesaid land, as surplus area of the Mahant under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (to be hereafter called the Act). Out of this surplus area, land admeasuring 13 standard acres and 11/2 units situate in the revenue estate of Dosanjh Kalan Phillaur was allotted by the Circle Revenue Officer to the appellants and Respondent No. 7, and possession thereof was given to them On 15.6.1961 in accordance with Rule 20 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1856 (hereinafter ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC367; 1976LabIC294; (1976)1SCC226; [1976]2SCR716; 1976(8)LC11(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This judgment would dispose of two civil appeals Nos. 354 and 355 of 1971 which have been filed on certificate by Tuhi Ram Sharma appellant against the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.2. The appellant joined service as Agricultural Inspector in the Agricultural Department of Punjab Government in 1945. Teja Singh, Bhale Ram and Prithvi Singh joined as Agricultural Inspectors in the said Agricultural Department on different dates between 1950 and 1958. The appellant was confirmed as Agricultural Inspector in 1959 On May 20, 1961 the appellant was appointed against a temporary post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Development Department of the State. By order dated October 28, 1965 the appellant was made substantive permanent Block Development and Panchayat Officer with effect from April 1, 1964 As a result of partition of Punjab the appellant as well as Teja Singh, Bhale Ram and Prithvi Singh were allocated to the State of Harya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC958; 1976LabIC628; (1976)2SCC934; [1976]2SCR731
K.K. Mathew, J.1. We first take up for consideration Civil Appeals Nos. 506-510 of 1971. 2. The appellants in these appeals filed writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the validity of notices issued by the 2nd respondent therein under the Emergency Risks (Goods) Insurance Act (Act 62 of 1962) and the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act (Act 63 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Acts' collectively and individually as 'the Goods Act' and 'the Factories Act' respectively). The impugned notices stated that the appellants had evaded payments of emergency risks insurance premiums in respect of goods or factories, as the case may be, by undervaluing the goods or factories for the purpose of insuring them under the Acts. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions on the ground that, after the expiry of the Acts, there could be no authorized officer to determine the quantum of the evaded premia on the basis of the correct value of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC376; (1976)1SCC311; 1976(8)LC15(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. What appears to have, been a clear case of refusal of admission to the appellant or the cancellation of his candidature at the proper time has been completely bungled and destroyed by the inherent inconsistency and seemingly contradictory stand taken by the respondent and lack of proper vigilance on the part of the Head of the Department of Law. The facts of the present case lie within a very narrow compass and only two short points of lay have been raised before us by Mr. Kapil Sibbal learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant was a teacher in the Government High School, Dumarkha in the District of Jind (Haryana). The University of Kurukshetra was running law classes for three years course and had extended the facility to persons who were in service to attend the evening classes and complete the three years course in that manner. The appellant decided to take the benefit of the facility given to the Kurukshetra University and joined LL.B. Part I clas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)4SCC823
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the State of Uttar Pradesh urged before this Court that the judgment of the High Court is illegal and erroneous inasmuch as it is against the ratio laid down by this Court in Panchayat Raj v. Babu Singh1.2. The facts of the appeal lie within a narrow compass. The respondent was appointed as Enquiry Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies Department sometime in the year 1945. He was appointed in a substantive capacity to a temporary post. Subsequently the post became permanent but there was no declaration by the Government confirming the respondent. By order dated August 29, 1967, the District Magistrate, Gonda served a notice on the respondent terminating his services and directed payment of one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice for termination of service. The order was passed on the basis that the respondent was merely a temporary employee. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which was heard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC392; 1976CriLJ334; (1976)1SCC281; [1976]2SCR713; 1975(7)LC957(SC)
P.K. Goswami J.1. To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity of a particular offence is not a ways an easy task. Sentencing involves an element of guessing but often settles down to practice obtaining in a particular court with inevitable differences arising in the context of the times and events in the light of social imperatives. It is always a matter of judicial discretion subject to any mandatory minimum prescribed by law.2. Hegel in his 'Philosophy of Right' pithily put the difficulty as follows:Reason cannot determine nor can the concept provide any principle whose application could decide whether justice requires for an offence (i) a corporal punishment of forty lashes or thirty nine, or (ii) a fine of five dollars or four dollars ninety three, four, etc., cents, or (iii) imprisonment of a year or three hundred and sixty-four, three, etc., days or a year and one, two, or three days, And yet injustice is done at once if three is one lash too many, or one dollar or one ...
Tag this Judgment!