Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC460; 1980CriLJ1510; (1979)4SCC800c; 1979(11)LC276(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to R I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/ in default for three months. He has also been convicted under Section 161 IPC but no separate sentence has been awarded. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the High Court and we do not find any error of law. Mr. Nambiar tried to argue that there are improbabilities in the case of the prosecution but the courts below accepted the case of the prosecution which is based on the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3. The money was recovered from the person of the appellant. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1523; (1980)1SCC492; 1979(11)LC508(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a fine of Rs. 160/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months and has also been convicted under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for one year. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr., Shiv-Pujan Singh appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that there was no legal evidence to prove that the handwriting on Ex. 4/1, 4/3 and 4/5, the disputed blank paper ticket and the signatures which have been proved to be those of the appellant, are of the appellant and thus if this is established, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. It appears, however, that the writing of the appellant has been proved on these documents not only by the experts but also by some other witnesses who were fully acquainted with the writing of the appellant. We have ourselves examined the signatures of the appellant on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1327; 1979CriLJ1136; (1980)1SCC320; 1979(11)LC262(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by Special Leave, the appellant was convicted under Section 304A I.P.C, and was sentenced to one year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- by the High Court after reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in favour of the appellant. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the judgment of the High Court and of the Magistrate, The High Court has given good and cogent reason for displacing the findings of the Magistrate that the prosecution was not able to prove the charge against the appellant. There is clear finding to show that the appellant had eaused the death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving. He had tried to run over the deceased while the deceased was trying to cross the road. The appellant did not make any attempt to save the deceased by swrving to the other side when there was sufficient space. We do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant.2. On the quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1705; 1979CriLJ1383; (1979)4SCC723; 1979(11)LC271(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. The appellant has been convicted in this appeal under Sections 489-B and 489-C and has been sentenced to R. I. for one year and to R. I. for six months respectively and fine of Rs. 500/-. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that it is true that the appellant was found in possession of a counterfeit two rupee notes and the accused handed over the note to a friend to purchase a ticket for a circus show. The booking clerk on seeing the note got suspicious. He immediately informed the Sub-Inspector of Police and on search of the appellant 99 two rupee notes were recovered. The appellant in his statement under Section 342 stated that two days ago he sold three quintals of tamarind fruits to a person whom he did not know and that person gave him a sum of Rs. 390/-. These currency notes have been given to him by the purchaser. He also said that he did not know that these currency notes were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1569; 1979CriLJ1083; 1980Supp(1)SCC162; 1979(11)LC504(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These two appeals by Special Leave are directed against a common judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the conviction of the appellants under Section 16(a)(1) under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was upheld in two separate cases. In case No. 837/1972, the sentence was two years whereas in case No. 830/1972, the sentence was one year. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. A detailed narrative of the prosecution case has been set out in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. But briefly, the allegation of the prosecution was that P.W. 2 Ganeshrao Pandurangrao Mukhadkar, a lawyer had purchased among others Articles, ten kilograms of groundnut oil from the shop of the two appellants known as Balaji kirapa Stores. The purchase was made on 1 10 1970. The oil purchased from the appellants was used for cooking food in connection with a feast given to Mr., Justice Deshpande of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1066; (1979)81PLR490; (1979)3SCC265; [1979]3SCR222
Desai, J.1. These appeals by certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana arise from three Execution Petitions filed by the present appellants for executing three decrees obtained by one Neki (since deceased) in three suits bearing Nos. 313, 360 and 369 of 1961 filed by him for preemption, to recover physical possession of the lands involved in the suits. The decrees in favour of Neki were confirmed finally by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1148, 1656 and 2341 of 1966 decided on 25th January 1968. The Judgment of this Court is reported in Hazari and Ors. v. Neki and Ors. : [1968]2SCR833 . The facts which ultimately resulted in decrees for pre-emption in favour of Neki are fully set out at pages 834-835 of the reported judgment and repeating the same would merely add to the length of this judgment. Suffice to state that there is no dispute that decrees for pre-emption were passed in favour of Neki against the original vendor Dha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1314; (1979)3SCC71; [1979]3SCR209; 1979(11)LC427(SC)
Koshal, J.1. This appeal by special leave has arisen out of a suit brought by Smt. Punna, respondent No. 1, against the two appellants and respondent No. 2 for the issuance of a perpetual injunction restraining the three defendants from interfering with her right to recover her father's share of six annas in a rupee in the offerings made at the sacred shrine of Shri Vaishno Devi Ji which is situated on the Trikutta Hills. The suit was decreed by the trial court whose judgment was upheld in first appeal by the District Judge, in a second appeal by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and in a Letters Patent Appeal by a Full Bench of that Court. It is the judgment of the Full Bench (which is dated the 18th of January. 1972) that is impugned before us.2. The averments made in the plaint may be summarised thus. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Bagu who died in or about the year 1959. During his life time Bagu and the three defendants were entitled to receive the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1820; 1979CriLJ1120; (1980)1SCC124; 1980Supp(1)SCC681; 1979(11)LC876(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000/-.. He was also convicted under Section 161 IPC and sentenced to one years' R.I. The two sentenced were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case has been fully detailed in the judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same over again. It appears that a theft in the godown of the Bank of Patiala had been reported to the Police Station, Solan and the appellant who was the Sub-inspector incharge of the Police Station took up the investigation on a FIR lodged in this connection by PW 8, Budh Ram. The prosecution case was that the appellant conveyed a message to Budh Ram that if he was prepared to pay Rs. 3000/, the appellant shall try to help him out. Budh Ram agreed to pay this money and it was settled that the appellant would come ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1511; (1979)4SCC560; 1979(11)LC464(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. These (wo appeals arise out of a batch of Writ Petitions which are allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, but, which, on appeal) were dismissed by a Division Bench of that Court. The appellants were consumers of high and low tension electrical energy which was being supplied to them under agreements with the Government of Andhra Pradesh Dy. G O. No. 187 dated 30-1-1955, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, purporting to act in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, enhanced the rates of supply of electrical energy over and above the contracted rates. Several persons, including the appellants in the two appeals filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the validity of G O. No. 187 dated 30th January, 1955. Pending disposal of the Writ Petitions they obtained stay of collection of enhanced charges. The Writ Petitions were 6relly allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1320; (1979)3SCC42; [1979]3SCR201; 1979(11)LC459(SC)
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner who lost before the Subordinate Tribunals and the High Court is the appellant in this appeal by special leave. Alleging that he was the landlord and that the respondents were his tenants in respect of certain lands in Bhommika village, the appellant filed petition before the Tehsildar, Pathapatnam under Section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act for the eviction of the respondents on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondents pleaded that the lands were situated in an Inam Estate which had been taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and that, they and their ancestors, who had occupancy rights were always in cultivating possession of the lands. It was also pleaded that after the taking over of the estate by the Government there was no longer any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. The Tehsilda...
Tag this Judgment!