Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC871; 1979CriLJ902; (1979)3SCC394
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The appellant was convicted by the learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge Kanpur, of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court of Allahabad. Along with the appellant Ram Sanehi was tried for an offence under Section 302 read with 120B I. P.C. while Munshi Lal was tried for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.Ram Sanehi was acquitted by the Trial Court while Munshi Lal was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge. The sentence of death passed on Munshi Lal was set aside by the High Court and the sentence of imprisonment for life was substituted in its place. Ramesh alone has appealed to this Court by special leave.2. The prosecution case was that there was enmity between Nand Kishore, deceased and Ram Sanehi. Ram Senehi had been beaten earlier and it was suspected that the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC25; [1978(37)FLR314]; 1978LabIC1537; (1978)IILLJ527SC; (1978)4SCC224; [1979]1SCR1009
Untwalia, J.1. By these four Writ Petitions the employers challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 25-O and 25-R of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The facts of the different cases are of a similar nature. It is not necessary to state them in any detail for the purposes of deciding the constitutional question. We may, however, just refer to a few in order to indicate the nature of the dispute between the parties.WRIT PETITION NO. 644 OF 19772. The petitioner in this case is Excel Wear, a Registered partnership firm, the partners of which are citizens of India. The petitioner has a factory at Bombay where it manufactures garments for exports. About 400 workmen were employed in the petitioner's factory. According to its case the relation between the petitioner management and its employees started deteriorating from the year 1974 and had become very much worse from 1976. From August, 1976 the workmen became very militant, aggressive, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1280; 1979CriLJ871; (1979)4SCC145
A.D. Koshal, J.1. For the abduction and murder of Inder Singh, a resident of village Lataur to Police Station Mulepur of Dist. Patiala and for doing away with his dead-body, three other residents of the same village, namely, Gurbachan Singh aged 55, his son Baldev Singh aged 30, and the latter's brother Hardev Singh aged 27, were tried by Shri Jagwant Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, for offences under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 120B read with Section 302 and Section 201, of the Indian Penal Code. Two of the accused, namely, Hardev Singh and Ms father were acquitted of all the charges. Their co-accused Baldev Singh was, however, found guilty of murdering Inder Singh in furtherance of the common intention of himself and others and was convicted of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The charges under Section 864 and Section 201 of the Code were also found proved against him and he was convicted thereof. The sentences awar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1012a; 1979CriLJ890; (1979)3SCC391
A.D. Koshal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 31st Jan. 1972 of the Gujarat High Court setting aside the acquittal of the appellant for an offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C., convicting him thereof and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 3000/-, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The case arises out of the affairs of a Co-operative Society named Dhrangadhra Nargrik Sahkari Bank Limited, Dhrangadhra, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), into which a probe was held at the instance of the Government of Gujarat in the year 1966 through the police who ultimately prosecuted three persons in the court of the sessions Judge Surendranagar. The charge against the three accused was that during the period between the 25th Sept. 1957 and the 31st May 1958, they committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a total sum of Rs. 23,200/- over which they had dominio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1181; 1979CriLJ708; (1979)3SCC358
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1.Habib Usman, sole appellant, was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. On appeal by the State of Gujarat the order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court and he was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. He has filed this appeal.2. The case against the accused was as follows:3. There was a trivial quarrel between the accused and Hajishah, P.W. 8 over a soap box near the Koteswar tube well, where both of them had gone for a bath. The deceased Amminuddin Miyasaheb intervened and this angered the accused. who went away uttering a threat at the deceased. On the day of occurrence, at about 8 A.M. the deceased had gone to Viramgam Railway Station to catch a train to go to Ahmedabad, as was his habit every day. Having put his bag in the compartment, he was standing on the platform when the accused attacked him with a knife. The blow was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1979CriLJ711; (1979)3SCC601
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. The appellant Rampal along with one Kanti Prasad. since acquitted by the High Court, was charged with being a party to a criminal conspiracy (120B I.P.C) to get one Vikram (PW 7) (involved in Crime No. 41 of Hastinapur Police Station under Section 379 I.P.C) released illegally from the lawful custody of the police on June 7, 1968 and was further charged with having actually got the said Vikram released unlawfully from the lawful custody on that day in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Mowana at Meerut in furtherance of the conspiracy and thereby having committed an offence punishable under Section 221 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as also Kanti, Prasad under both the counts and sentenced each one to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under each count respectively. Kanti Prasad was also found guilty of an offence punishable under. Section 466 I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. In appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC1979; 1979CriLJ41; (1979)2SCC179; [1979]1SCR993
Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated January 21, 1976, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 565 of 1969, whereby it set aside an order, dated February 26, 1969, of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and directed the latter to restore Case No. 244/C.W. of 1968 against the accused persons, excepting accused No. 7 (who is since dead) for being dealt with in the light of the observations made therein.2. The case was originally instituted on April 1, 1961 on the basis of a criminal complaint filed by the Assistant Collector (Customs) in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay. It is alleged in the complaint that between August 1957 and March 1960, offences under Section 120B, I.P.S., read with Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1978, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Act, 1947, were committed by one Ramlal Laxmidutta Nanda and seven others, including the appellant, who is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC5; [1979]116ITR1(SC); (1978)4SCC358; [1979]1SCR976
Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against a judgment of the Calcutta High Court answering the first question referred to it by the Tribunal in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There were in all five questions referred by the Tribunal but questions Nos. 2 to 5 no longer survive and these appeals are limited only to question No. 1. That question is in the following terms :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's claim for the exchange loss of Rs. 11 lakhs for the assessment year 1957-58 and Rs. 5,50,000/- for the assessment year 1959-60 in respect of remittances of profit from Pakistan was not allowable as a deductionSince there are two assessment years in regard to which the question arises, there are two appeals, one in respect of each assessment year, but the question is the same. W will briefly state the facts as that is necessary for the purpose of answering the question.2. The assessee is a limited company h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1791; (1979)1SCC98; [1979]1SCR955
Desai, J.1. These two appeals by special leave arise from a suit filed by the respondents plaintiffs for recovering possession of land bearing Survey Nos. 487/1 to 487/6 situated at Shirwal Peta Khandala from the appellant defendant. During the pendency of this suit a portion of the land in dispute was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and as both the plaintiffs and the defendant laid a claim to compensation, a reference was made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the eligibility for the amount of compensation. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit and First Appeal No. 160 of 1966 was preferred by the defendant to the High Court of Bombay. Following the decision of the trial Court, the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was answered in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and the defendant preferred First Appeal No. 173 of 1966 to the High Court. Both the appeals were heard together and by its judgment dated 10/11 October, 1974...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1; 1979CriLJ13; (1979)3SCC118; [1979]1SCR947
Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is by special leave by the second party in Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code proceedings against the judgment of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 765 of 1976.2. On receipt of a Police Report dated 29-2-1968, proceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code were started on 18-3-1968. The appellants in this Court are the Second Party and the respondents the First Party. The proceedings were converted into one under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and the lands in dispute were attached on 14-5-1968. Both the parties claimed title as well as possession of the disputed land with them. The First Party, respondents, filed their documents and nine affidavits in support of their claims while tin appellants, Second Party, filed several documents and 12 affidavits in support of their case. The Magistrate on a consideration of the material placed before him found himself unable to decide as to which of the parties had been in posses...
Tag this Judgment!