Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC903; 43(1977)CLT69(SC); 1977CriLJ773; (1976)4SCC250; [1977]1SCR335
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This group of three Criminal Appeals by Special Leave can be divided broadly into two categories : one category consisting of Criminal Appeals Nos. 308 & 309 of 1975 and the other, consisting of Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1975. We are disposing of them by a common judgment since the question which arises for consideration in both sets of appeals is as to what is the extent of the power of the Court to give consent to withdrawal of prosecution and discharge of the accused under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Taking up first Criminal Appeals Nos. 308 and 309 of 1975, both these criminal appeals arise out of prosecutions launched in respect of offences alleged to have been committed in the course of the same incident. The police filed a case against nine respondents in Criminal Appeals No. 308 of 1975 charging them for offences under Sections 143, 341 and 138 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It appears that before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1801; 1977CriLJ1448; (1976)4SCC255
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 302. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of one Gurbachan Singh. According to the prosecution, the accused Hansa Singh had suspected the deceased Gurbachan Singh of committing sodomy on his son Haria, which furnished the motive for the murder of Gurbachan Singh The story of the prosecution is that on the 30th October, 1969 at about 6.00 p.m. when Gurbachan Singh was going to some village and he reached near the house of Gurjit Singh he was surrounded by the accused, some of whom caught hold of him and the appellant Hansa Singh is said to have assaulted him on various parts of the body with his kir pan. F.I.R. was lodged at about 9.00 p. m. at Police Station Mathana. being 7 miles from the village where the occurrence took place. The police visited the spot and after usual investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC893; 1977CriLJ550; (1976)4SCC816
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, which while upholding conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life. The appeal is confined to the question of sentence and nature of the offence committed. According to the prosecution two persons, viz., the appellant Karnail Singh and Zora Singh had assaulted the deceased Sarwan Singh. Zora Singh was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, who found that he was falsely implicated due to enmity. The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of Zora Singh but the complainant had filed Criminal Revision in the High Court which was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court found that Karnail Singh had assaulted the deceased and it accordingly upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life. According to the prosecution there was some enmity betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC472; 1977CriLJ273; (1976)4SCC158; [1977]1SCR280
A.C. Gupta, J.1. I agree with my learned brother that the appeals of Dalbir Singh, Puran Singh and Smt. Dalbir Kaur alias Bhiro should be dismissed. The Judgment of the High Court which affirms the order of conviction and the sentences passed on these appellants by the trial court does not appear to suffer from any infirmity which can be said to have caused a failure of justice so far as the cases of these appellants are concerned. I also agree that the appeal of Ajit Singh should be allowed for the reasons stated in the Judgment of my learned brother.2. The decisions of this Court referred to in the Judgment of my learned brother lay down that this Court does not interfere with the findings of fact unless it is shown that 'substantial and grave injustice has been done'. But whether such injustice has been done In a given case depends on the circumstances of the case, and 1 do not think one could catalogue exhaustively all possible circumstances in which it can be said that there has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC912; (1976)4SCC527; 1978(10)LC54(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta confirming an order passed by the Presidency Magistrate holding that a complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta against the respondents was not Competent and discharging the respondents. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.2. The respondents ate proprietors of a grocery shop situate in the city of Calcutta. The Food Inspector took samples of turmeric powder sold by the respondents in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the rules nude under the Act and sentence one of the samples to the Public Analyst for analysis. It was found, as a result of the analysis, that the sample was heavily adulterated and was not fit for human consumption. The Food Inspector on these facts, filed a complaint against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2363; (1976)4SCC314; [1977]1SCR273; 1976(8)LC766(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. Civil Appeals Nos. 907, 908 and 909 of 1974 are by the State of Kerala and the Land Board, Trivandrum. They are directed against a common judgment of the Kerala High Court dated July 27, 3973. Civil Appeals Nos. 1354 and 1355 of 1975 are by petitioners who had applied for revision of the orders of the Taluk Land Board, Alathur, dated June 11, 1974 and April 27, 1974. The High Court dismissed the revision petitions by two separate judgments dared July 9, 1975 and June 18, 1975. All the appeals are by special leave. We have heard them together at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties, and will examine them in a common judgment.2. The controversy in all the cases relates to the application of certain provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the impugned voluntary transfers of Kayal lands. The State of Kerala feels aggrieved because the High Court has taken the view that the transfers made between September 15...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2361; 1976(2)KarLJ205; (1976)3SCC716; [1977]1SCR269; 1976(8)LC763(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 25 June, 1974 of the Karnataka High Court. 2. The principal question in this appeal whether Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applies to the land in suit which was leased to the respondent.3. A large plot of land comprising an area of about 20 acres popularly known as 'The Chamaraja Sewage Farm' situate in the city of Bang//alore belongs to the appellant Corporation. The appellant leased to the respondent by a registered lease dated 14 September, 1953 the aforementioned land for a period of 5 years on an annual rent of Rs. 13,555/-. The respondent by notice was called upon to hand over possession of the land immediately after the expiry of the period of lease. The respondent failed to deliver possession. The reason why the appellant required that land is that the Corporation proposed a scheme for the development and construction of a new township on that area.4. The respondent filed a suit for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC381; (1976)4SCC441
P.N. Bhagwati, J1. The appellants. who were accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the Trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of intentionally causing the death of one Malhari (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to one Babu Shaikh. The charge was sought to be substantiated by three categories of evidence : (1) evidence of Hiralal Sutar and Babu Shaikh, both of whom claimed to be eye-witnesses to the incident resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to Babu Shaikh (2) evidence of dying declarations made by the deceased before Dinkar Khunte and Police Patil Madhavrao Dhayagude : and (3) evidence of recovery of bloodstained clothes from accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was not satisfied with this evidence and taking the view that it suffered from con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2557; (1976)4SCC270; [1977]1SCR255
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave, directed against a judgment dated December 13, 1974, of the High Court of Madras, arises out of these facts :2. Respondent Rabia Bai, is a citizen of India. She has her residence at Grange Yercund. Salem District. She came to Miow in 1949 that premises No. 20, Godown Street, G. T. Madras (known as Gani Market) was for sale. Consequently, by a sale-deed, dated April 29, 1949, she purchased this property from one Abdul Gani Jan Mohd. who had left for Pakistan in 1947, soon after the partition of the Indian sub-continent. Abdul Gani came to Madras in April 1949 and executed the sale-deed in her favour for a consideration of Rs. 2,40,000/- out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid immediately in the form of bank drafts. Thereafter, the sale-deed was duly engrossed and sent to Karachi for execution by the vendor, who duly executed it and sent it back. It was presented at the Collector's Office, Madras and was duly stamped on June 27, 1949. After ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ369SC; (1976)4SCC47; [1977]1SCR248; 1976(1)SLJ731(SC); 1976(8)LC814(SC)
M. H. Beg, J.1. A number of appeals filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation are before us by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, against orders of a Labour Court passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts of the first of these appeals may be stated to illustrate the kind of circumstances in which a common question of law involved in these appeals arises.2. The respondent P. Venkateswara Rao, who was employed on 6th October, 1933, retired on 10th February, 1958, after putting in more than 34 years of service. As he was a former employee of the Nizam's State Railway, his service conditions were governed by the provisions of the Government of Hyderabad, Railway Department Establishment Code of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). He claimed that he was entitled to receive a gratuity at a half month's salary for each year of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 15 months' salary as laid ...
Tag this Judgment!