Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1978)7CTR(SC)0044B
Beg, C.J. - The question before us in these appeals by special leave was framed as follows -'Whether atukulu (parched rice) and muramaralu (puffed rice) within the meaning of entry 66(b) of Schedule I to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ?'2. This question arose before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in appeals from single Judge decisions of the High Court, out of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').S. 5(1) of the Act provides -3. '5. Levy of tax on sales on purchases of goods. - (1) Every dealer (other than a casual trader and an agent of a non-resident dealer) whose total turnover for a year is not less than Rs. 25,000 and every agent of a non-resident dealer whatever be his turnover for the year, shall pay a tax for each year at the rate of four paise on every rupee of his turnover.'4. S. 5(2) enacts :'Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-S. (1), the tax under this Act shall be levied -(a) in the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC548; [1978(36)FLR266]; (1978)ILLJ349SC; (1978)IILLJ73SC; (1978)2SCC213; [1978]3SCR207; 1978LabIC467(SC)
ORDER165. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Krishna Iyer, J. in his critical judgment that the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board appeal should be dismissed. We will give our reasons later indicating the area of concurrence and divergence, if any, on the various points in controversy on which our learned Brother has dwelt.Chandrachud, C. J.166. By a short order dated February 21, 1978, which I pronounced on behalf of myself and my learned Brethren Jaswant Singh and Tulzapurkar, I had expressed our agreement with the view taken by Brother Krishna Iyer on behalf of himself and three other learned Brethren that the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board's appeal be dismissed. I had stated that the area of concurrence or divergence with the rest of the judgment will, if necessary, be indicated later.167. I have now the added advantage of knowing the divergent view expressed by Jaswant Singh and Tulzapurkar, JJ. on certain aspects of the matter. Almost every ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC955; (1978)0GLR502; 1978MhLJ550(SC); (1978)2SCC573; [1978]3SCR198; 1978(10)LC218(SC)
1. If the quest for certainty in law is often baffled, as it is according to Judge Jerome Frank in 'Law and the Modern Mind', the reasons are mainly two : firstly, the lack of precise formulation of even statutory lav so as to leave lacunae and loopholes in it giving scope to much avoidable disputation; and, secondly, die unpredictability of the judicial rendering of the law after every conceivable as well as inconceivable aspect of it has been explored and subjected to forensic debate. Even the staunchest exponents of legal realism, who are apt to treat the quest for certainty in the administration of justice in accordance with law, in an uncertain world of imperfect human beings, to be practically always futile and doomed to failure, will not deny the desirability and the beneficial effects of such certainty in law as may be possible. Unfortunately, there are not infrequent instances where what should have been clear and certain, by applying well established canons of statutory const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1016; 1978CriLJ774; (1978)2SCC365; [1978]3SCR129; 1978(10)LC451(SC)
1. We have heard counsel on both sides. We are satisfied that this is a case where on the facts now placed before us, bail should be grantee The principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail have already been explained by this Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1782] S.C.R. 358. On the basis of that decision this is clearly a case where the appellant is entitled to bail. Two grounds have been mentioned on behalf of the State, namely, the appellant's presence is necessary for making a search and recovery of certain documents. We do not think that the appellant has to be taken into custody for making a search of premises in her presence. This can be done without her being taken into custody. The other ground that is put forward is the appellant's presence is required by the police for interrogation in connection with investigation. We make it clear that the appellant shall appear for interrogation by the police whenever reasonably required, subject to her right un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1095; 1978CriLJ844; (1978)2SCC366; [1978]3SCR127; 1978(10)LC606(SC)
ORDER1. The offence alleged in this case against the appellant is one Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Bail was granted by the Sessions Judge after hearing counsel on both sides but it was cancelled by the High Court mainly for the reason that the appellant had simultaneously moved for bail in the Sessions as well as in the High Court without disclosing to the Sessions Court that he had moved for bail in the High Court. This naturally made the High Court feel that the party was not straight-forward in his dealings with the Court The consequence was that the bail already granted was reversed.2. Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima-facie (according to) the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. This Court has explained ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC897; (1978)1SCC636; [1978]3SCR98; [1978]41STC409(SC)
1. These appeals raise a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as applied to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter, for the sake of convenience referred to as Delhi). The Act was extended to Delhi subject to certain modifications by a Notification dated 28th April, 1951 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Part States (Laws) Act, 1950 and it came into force in Delhi on 28th May, 1951 by virtue of a Notification issued Under Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Act. There have been several amendments made in the Act from time to time since the date of its application to Delhi but we are concerned in these appeals only with the assessment periods 1971-72 and 1972-73 and hence we shall confine ourselves to the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood during these assessment periods.2. Section 2 enacted the definition provision and Claus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1136; 1978CriLJ1092; (1978)3SCC129; 1978(10)LC248(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 10.9.1974 by which the appellant Balraj Singh @ Chhajju has been acquitted of the charges framed against him.2. The facts of the case have been succinctly stated in the judgment of the High Court as also that of the learned Session Judge. It appears that tow accused Balraj Singh alias Chhajju Ram and Balkar Singh alias Khola prosecuted before the Sessions Judge who acquitted Balkar Singh alias Khola but convicted the respondent Balraj Singh alias Chhajiu under Section 302 and sentenced him to death and also convicted him under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The respondent filed an appeal to the High Court and a reference was made by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of his death sentence. The High Court after cartful consideration of the evidence held that the case against the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedDeceased had blended his individual properties with the property of HUF before his death. It was contended by the appellant that deceased had made a disposition in favour of his relatives without consideration thus the value of the said property should be included in the principal value of the Estate passing on his death. It was held that inaccordance with the precedents, the act of blending is not covered under the explanations of Section 2(15) of Estate Duty Act, 1953 and the act of Disposition should be bilateral or multilateral and not unilateral. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1392; 1978CriLJ1412; (1978)3SCC132; 1978(10)LC217(SC)
Fazal Ali, J. 1. In this appeal by special leave the appellants namely Karamat Ali, Hashmat Ali, Kasam Ali and Sbarafat Ali have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the High Court of Assam, who affirmed the judgment of the Sessions Judge. There were eight accused before the trial Court, who were convicted under Section 302/149 I.P.C. but on appeal field before the High Court. The High Court acquitted four of that accused & altered the conviction of remaining four accused from Section 302/149 I.P.C. to that under Section 302/34 I.P.C. maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment. The detailed narrative of the prosecution case is contained in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. It appears that on 14.12.1969 the deceased Majimuddin along with his brother Abdul Kadir was going to Moirabari market to sell brinjils belonging to their family. At the place of occurrence, which seems t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1021; 1978(26)BLJR191; 1978CriLJ780; (1978)2SCC473; [1978]3SCR75; 1978(10)LC199(SC)
1. This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated August 3,1973, by which their acquittal has been set aside and they have been convicted and sentenced for the commission of various offences. Both the courts have referred to the accused and the prosecution witnesses with reference to their serial numbers, and as arguments before us have also been advanced with reference to those numbers, it will be convenient to adhere to that method of describing them.2. The incident which has given rise to this appeal relates to village Kasanur, within the jurisdiction of Simhadripuram police station in Pulivendla taluk of Cuddapah district. It is alleged that there was long standing enmity between the group of the accused led by A-1, and the group of the prosecution witnesses led by Harishchandra Reddy. The High Court has mentioned the cause of the enmity and the disputes which preceded the present incident. It is alleged that on the morning of ...
Tag this Judgment!