Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1729; (1979)4SCC488; 1979(11)LC671(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted under Section 498 of the Indian Panel Code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment soc motu in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It appears that the appellant was the first cousion of D.W 2 Hemalata. Hemalate was married to the complainant Mabhabananda Narak and according to the prosecution itself, the appellant himself had taken an active part in bringing about this marriage. It is also not disputed that the accused was living in the house adjacent to that of father in law of Hemalata. It appears that the complaiuam, dhabananda Nayak was studying in a school of Bhadrak and his wife was staying with the father of the complamant in the village. On the 26th April, 1970 C I. 1 Hemalata went to the appellant's house and after staying them for some time proceeded to her father's home. The reas on far leaving the house of father in-law given by Hemalate was that she was being ill treate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC711; 1979CriLJ651; 1979CENCUS316D; (1979)2SCC115; [1979]2SCR1131
S. Muratza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by Special Leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- for being in possession of 48 bottles of liquor which were recovered from a car which was being driven by the appellant. Mr. Javali appearing for the appellant has raised a short point before us. He has submitted that the Inspector of Excise who searched the car along with the panchas had no jurisdiction to do so because he did so without complying with the provisions of Section 54 of the Excise Act. In our opinion, the contention is well-founded and must prevail, Section 53 runs thus:If a Magistrate, upon information and after such inquiry (if any) as he thinks necessary, has reasons to believe that an offence under Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has been, is being or is likely to be committed, he may issue a warrant-(a) for the search of any place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC745; 1979CriLJ659; (1979)2SCC656; [1979]2SCR1085
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 1978. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 31-3-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 597/76. A.N. Mulla and S.K. Jain for the Appellant. O.P. Rana for the Respondent. The Judgment of V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Shinghal and D. A. Desai JJ. was delivered by Krishna Iyer, J.P.S. Kailasam, J. gave a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and A. D. Koshal, J. KRISHNA IYER, J.-Exordially speaking, the point for decision is short but its legal import and human portent are deep, sounding in constitutional values and meriting incisive examination. Where the question wears a simple look but its answer strikes at life and liberty we must proceed on the inarticulate major premise of human law as the solemn delivery system of human justice. In formal terms, the problem to be resolved is the vires of Order XXI, Rule 15(1) (c) of the Supreme Court Rules (the Rules, for short), but in juristic terms it turns on the inflex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1979]49CompCas419(SC); (1979)2SCC529; [1979]2SCR1038
ORDER ETC.: An application under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act for amendment or revocation of any order made by the Commission in any proceedings shall be supported by evidence on affidavit of the material change in the relevant circumstances or any other fact or circumstances on which the applicant relies. Unless the Commission otherwise directs notice of the application together with copies of the affidavits in support thereof, shall be served on every party who appeared at the hearing of the previous proceedings and every such party shall be entitled to be heard on the application and the provisions of Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall as far as may, be applied to these proceedings.8. It is against the background of these provisions of the Act and the Regulations that we have to determine the question arising for consideration in the appeal.9. The contention of the appellant in support of the appeal was that the Order dated 14th May, 1976 suf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1657; 1980CriLJ1248; 1980(Supp)SCC694; 1979()WLN273
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal by special leave is preferred by three appellants Alam, Tahar and Latif against the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No. 359 of 1971 for an offence under Section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, having slaughtered a cow belonging to one Lala.2. A complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 Brij Lal on 22nd November, 1968 at the Police Station Serhwa that he had learnt that the appellants had killed three or four cows on the Diwali day and had eaten the meat which was distributed amongst themselves. So far as the present case is concerned, the appellants along with one Lala were put up for trial and the Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 Subhan and an extra-judicial confession spoken to by P.W. 10 and found the appellants guilty of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them to two years' R.I. and fine of Rupees 200/- in default thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC684; 1979LabIC473; (1979)2SCC111; [1979]2SCR1026; 1979(11)LC308(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated August 19, 1968 dismissing a second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration.2. The respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in a temporary post in 1955. He was discharged from service on July 13, 1957. A writ petition filed by him in the Allahabad High Court was allowed on August 4, 1959, and accordingly on December 15, 1959 he was reinstated in service. Thereafter, on January 21, 1960 his services were terminated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra.3. On March 13, 1963 the respondent instituted a suit for a declaration that the order dated January 21, 1960 was illegal and void and that he continued as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Uttar Pradesh Police Service. It was alleged that on a false complaint made against him in respect of the custody and detention of one Smt. Phoolmati, an enquiry had been made in consequence of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1241; (1979)4SCC393; 1979(11)LC277(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay in a suit for specific performance of a contract. 2. The appellant brought Civil Suit No. 217 A of 1958 to the Court of the Civil Judge, Amravati alleging that one Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain had entered into an agreement for sale in his favour on September 11, 1956 for the sale of a plot measuring 100 feet by 10 feet for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. It was asserted that he had paid Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money and the balance was to be paid on registration of the sale deed. Of that balance, a further Rs. 2,000/ was paid later. Subsequently, it is pleaded, Mohsinali informed the appellant of the pendency of Civil Suit No. 13 A of 1956 between himself and certain others including Umarsha and Girjeshankar, for declaration of title and for possession, upon which the appellant than executed a further document dated November 18, 1957 by which he agreed that in case the said Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1114; 1979CriLJ916; (1979)81PLR740; (1979)4SCC399; 1979(11)LC346(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 304, Part-1, IPC. and sentenced to six year's rigorous imprisonment. Five other accused who had been convicted by the Sessions Judge were acquitted by the High Court. This altercation arose out of an irrigation dispute while Gulzar Singh was trying to divert water on his land on 26-6-1971. The detailed facts are set out in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat them again.2. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Uma Dutta raised a short point before us. He submitted that in view of the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant cannot be sustained. In this connection, the counsel drew our attention to the following findings of the High Court:It is thus evidence that the version given by Gurmit Kaur and Haqiaqat Singh in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1191; 1979CriLJ936; (1979)4SCC526; 1979(11)LC627(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal by special leave is preferred by the first accused Panalal Damodar Rathi against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Bombay whereby it dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by him and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court.2. The appellant was a Police Prosecutor attached to the Court of judicial Magistrate, Kopargaon in the district of Ahmednagar. He was tried jointly along with the court orderly Radhakrishna Ramabhau Dalvi as second accused for offences punishable under Section 161. Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was convicted under Section 161. Indian Penal Code, and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one years's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default to further rigorous for three months. The second accused who was also convicted and sentenced by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC654; 1979CriLJ857; 1981(8)ELT103(SC); (1979)4SCC495
M. Hidayatullah, C.J. 1. The appellant Om Prakash who appeals by special leave, has been convicted under sub-rule (9) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with Section 3(1) of the Gur (Movement Control) Order, 1963 and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The case against the appellant is that on January 14, 1964 at or about 10 A. M. he was attempting to export from Punjab State to Rajasthan State gur in truck No. PNR 6020. This truck was stopped near the border between Punjab and Rajasthan States at a village called Khandewara. The truck was found loaded with 59 quintals of gur and 22 quintals of desi khand which under the Gur (Movement Control) Order could not be exported from the State of Punjab. Under the definition of 'export' in the said Order, it is stated inter alia that 'export' means to take or cause to be taken from the State of Punjab. Clause (3) of the Order states that no person shall export or attempt to export or abet the export of gur except u...
Tag this Judgment!