Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1343; 1979CriLJ1117; (1979)4SCC716; 1979(11)LC393(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 471 IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/. Mr. V.S Desai has pressed this appeal on the question of sentence only. It appears from the record that the appellant has served more than two months in jail. From the facts found by the courts below it also appears that although a forged Bank Guarantee Bond was filed by the appellant before the Public Works Department but as soon as the forgery was detected the appellant immediately withdrew the bond and paid Rs. one lakh and forty three thousand by way of fixed deposit receipts. Thus even if the appellant had used forged documents, it is clear that no loss has been caused to anybody. In this view of the matter we are inclined to take a lenient view of the matter. We, therefore, while upholding the conviction of the appellant reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served and for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1136; 1979LabIC906; (1979)4SCC673; 1979(11)LC396(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by certificate, directed against a judgment, dated May 6, 1968, of the High Court of Delhi, arises out of these facts: As per Government Notification No F.l/12/58, Delhi, dated March 15, 1961, the President of India in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution framed Delhi and Himachal Pradesh Civil Service Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the 1961 Rules).2. Rule 3 of the 1961 Rules constituted the Delhi and Himachal Pradesh Civil Service consisting of two grades, namely, Grade I and Grade II. The posts in Grade I were Central Civil Posts Glass I (Gazetted) and those in Grade II were Central Civil Posts, Class II (Gazetted). Rules 5 and 29 of the 1961 Rules, respectively provide for: (i) the method of recruitment to the Service; and (ii) the manner in which the seniority of the persons so appointed was to be determined.3. Rule 5 prescribes these methods of appointment to the service, namely:(a) by direct recruitment in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1261; 1979CriLJ1074; (1979)4SCC641
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to nine months R.I. by the High Court, which set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial magistrate on appeal to it by the State. The judgment of the High Court and that of the trial Court, contain a detailed narrative of the prosecution case. On the day of occurrence the complainant Raghia Surji was assaulted by Raman Kalia and Khalpa Kalia in front of the house of Lallu Ram who was also assaulted. It was also alleged that the two accused assaulted Mohan Raghia, the son of the complainant also. The Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that no sufficient evidence was led before the Court. In acquitting the appellant Khalpa Kalia the Magistrate was swayed by the circumstance that his name was not at all mentioned in the F.I.R. although P. I. R. was lodged by Raghia Surji who had seen the entire occurrence and still he never indicated in the F.I.R. that the second appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1290; 1979CriLJ855; (1979)4SCC559; 1979(11)LC388(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. All these appeals have been pressed before us only on the question of sentence. More particularly appellants 1 and 3 have not been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act although the other appellants have been given its benefit by the High Court which enhanced the sentence imposed by the Magistrate at the instance of the State. We are not concerned with the merits at all. The High Court has clearly found that accused 2.4 are partners of the firm and they are members of the same family, while accused No. 1 is the manager. In this situation, therefore, we do not find any distinction between the case of the appellants 1 & 3 and the other appellants. We are unable to support the order of the High Court which gave the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the other accused but not to the appellants 1 and 3. In these circumstances while upholding the conviction of the appellants, we modify their sentences to this extent that the sentences of app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1979)4SCC714; 1979(11)LC391(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant had been convicted under Section 16(1)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a. fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The prosecution case was that on the 28th of September, 1971, P W 1 the Food Inspector found the appellant Masta Singh having in his possession about 10 K Gs. of cow's milk carried for a sale in a drum. He demanded a sample and after purchasing 24 ounces of milk and making the usual parts he sent the same to the Public Analyst for examination. There is absolutely no evidence on the record to show as to whether or not the sample of milk taken by the Food Inspector was meant for sale or that it was cow's milk. PW. 1 has no doubt stated in his evidence that the milk was carried in a drum and was cow's milk but he does not explain from what source he came to have this knowledge. In fact the Food Inspector in his report to the Pub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC720; (1979)2SCC70; [1979]2SCR1147
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. These appeals by certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay are directed against that Court's common judgment and decree dated September 9/10, 1968, passed in two cross appeals being First Appeal Nos. 245 of 1962 and 844 of 1961.2. A contract for the construction of an aqueduct across the Alandi River at Mile No. 2 of the Nasik Left Bank Canal of the total value of Rs. 1,07,000/- was granted to the appellant-plaintiff (originally a partnership but later a proprietary firm of contractors) by the respondent-defendant (the State of Maharashtra) after the former's tender was accepted on June 17, 1955. On July 2, 1955 the Executive Engineer issued the work order to the appellant-plaintiff directing him to commence the work by July 5, 1955 intimating in clear terms that the stipulated date for starting the work would be reckoned from July 5, 1955. The formal regular Contract in prescribed Form B-2/1 of 1955-56 (Ex. 34) containing the terms...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1142; (1979)4SCC486; 1979(11)LC223(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. Tatya died on February 2, 1955. The respondents, Tangawa and Sundra Bai are the co widows of Tatya. They were co-plaintiffs in the original suit.2. The suit lands originally belonged to one Dev Gonda Patil who gifted the same by a registered deed, dated October 13, 1902 to Smt. Aku Bai. Aku Bai died survived by her son, Tatya and a daughter, : Padmini, who is the appellant before us. Tatya died issuless on February 2, 1955, survived by his co-widows, Tangavva and Sunderbai.3. The co widows, (who are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal) filed Suit No. 25 of 1967 for recovery of possession of the suit lands admeasuring 15 acres and 16 gunthas, bearing Survey Nos. 137, 138 and 238, situate in Mouza Shirti. The plaintiffs case was that on the death of Akubai (which according to the evidence took place sometime, in 1905 or 1906), their hus band Tatya became the owner of the entire suit lands, and continued in exclusive possession thereof till his death in 1955 After Tatya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1038; (1979)4SCC729; 1979(11)LC324(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment, dated July 26, 1968, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows: Jagannath Gupta & Co. (P) Ltd; the respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was incorporated in the year 1940 under the Indian Companies Act as a private Company limited by shares with its registered office in Calcutta. Its nominal capital was and still is Rs. 25,00,0000 divided into 1000 ordinary shares of Rs. 2,500/- each, with the entire capital paid up or credited as paid up. 2. Prior to 1940, Jagannath Gupta used to carry on business under the name and style of 'Jagannath Gupta & Co.', as Karta of a Joint Hindu Family business. Subsequently, as a result of the family arrangement, the Joint Hindu Family trading partnership was converted, into a contractual partnership under the name and style of Jagannath Gupta & Co.'. It was thereafter converted into a private limited Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC713; 1979CriLJ652; (1979)2SCC170; [1979]2SCR1171
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court by which the conviction of the appellant under Section 494 I.P.C. and sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- have been upheld. The facts of this case have been detailed in the judgments of the courts below and it is not necessary to repeat them. Suffice it to say that the accused Gopal Lal married the complainant Kanchan sometime in the year, 1963 and a child was born out of this wedlock. Soon thereafter the parties appeared to have fallen out and parted company. While the first marriage was subsisting Gopal Lal contracted a second marriage which according to the custom prevalent amongst Tellis is a valid marriage commonly known as nata marriage. This marriage was contracted on 20th of March, 1969. The complainant Kanchan, the first wife having come to know about this marriage filed a complaint on the 22nd March, 1969, on the basis of which app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC705; 1979CriLJ645; 1979CENCUS196D; (1979)2SCC58; [1979]2SCR1160; 1979(11)LC702(SC)
A.D. Koshal and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was appointed for a period of two years on probation by letter dated 15-6-1998, and she joined the school on 18-6-1998. Before expiry of the period of two years, her services stood terminated by letter dated 24-4-2000 indicating therein that her services are no longer required. In the letter of termination it had also been indicated that the employer had warned the employee in writing about certain drawbacks in her work, and that such acts are not beneficial to the employer. Be it stated that the employer had issued a notice to show cause to the appellant by letter dated 22-3-2000, and the appellant had filed her show-cause. After issuance of the letter of termination, the appellant approached the School Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the order is penal in nature, and is a cam...
Tag this Judgment!