Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC552; 1980CriLJ407; (1980)1SCC203
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, the appellants were convicted under Section 302/149 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced under various sections of the Penal Code as indicated in the judgment of the High Court. Essential details of the prosecution case have been fully reproduced in the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. It appears that two main incidents took place in the course of which some of the prosecution witnesses were assaulted and the deceased was killed. In one incident, there was a mutual altercation between the prosecution witnesses and some of the accused persons in the course of which there was an exchange of brickbats as a result of which some grievous injuries were caused to witnesses Hazari, Bhanna, Dhanna and Bhima. Thereafter the complainant party ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1761; 1979CriLJ1335; (1979)4SCC312
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In these appeals the appellants' have been convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code as fully indicated in the judgment of the High Court. The main charges against the accused related to a conspiracy said to have been hatched tat Calicut and Tellicherry in pursuance of which a number of illegal acts like raiding police station, committing dacoities had been committed.2. The prosecution case in its essential details has been elaborately indicated in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. There were a very large number of accused, some of whom were convicted and there was another category of accused who were acquitted by the Sessions Judge and on appeal by the State convicted by the High Court. Apart from other prosecution witnesses, the prosecution relied on the testimony of accomplice witnesses P.ws. 119, 126 and 165 as also P. Ws. 76 and 85 who were also more or less in the nature of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC638; 1980CriLJ446; (1980)4SCC425
S. Murataza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate jurisdiction) Act the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, by the High Court of Kerala. The accused was tried by the Sessions Judge who after considering the evidence, acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him. Thereafter the State of Kerala filed an appeal to the High Court and the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. The facts of the case have been fully detailed in the judgment of the Sessions Court and the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. The trial Court appears to have acquitted the appellant on the ground that there were certain infirmities in the investigation conducted by the Police Officer. The manner in which the F.I.R. was lodged, the delay in despatch of the F. T. R. and the delay o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC979; 1979LabIC789; 1979MPLJ409(SC); (1979)2SCC270; [1979]3SCR630; 1979(2)SLJ14(SC); 1979(11)LC474(SC)
ORDERDesai, J.1. Mr. Gambhir, learned Counsel for the petitioner informed us that a number of petitions are pending in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in which the question raised in the present group of petitions is involved and as we are not inclined to grant leave, we would rather indicate our reasons by a speaking order.2. At the commencement of the British Raj both in the Raj ruled area of India and the princely States institutions of higher education were set up and manned under Government aegis. As the demand for institutions of higher education increased with the proliferation of State activity and need of white collar employees, these institutions speedily multiplied and they were generally set up and manned by educational societies or local authorities.3. The turmoil since independence and especially in the last one and a half decade in the world of academicians led to the reversal of the policy of Government directly setting up educational institutions and in fact whatever ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC957; 1980CriLJ735; (1980)1SCC201
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In these two appeals the appellants have been convicted as follows:Under Section 148 I.P.C.Each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 302/149 I.P.C.Each of them sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 500/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 435/149 I.P.C.Each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.325/149 I.P.C. Each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 323/149 I.P.C.Each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case has been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. We have perused the judgment of the Sessions Judge and also that of the High Court and heard learned Counsel for appellants at great length. We do not find any er...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1536; 1979CriLJ960; (1979)2SCC394; [1979]3SCR636
Fazal Ali, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter called the Act) against an order of the High Court of Bombay convicting the appellants for a Civil Contempt and sentencing them to one month's simple imprisonment. The facts of the case have been fully detailed by the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. It appears that Respondent No. 1 had given a loan of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellants on certain conditions. Somehow or other, the loan could not be paid by the appellants as a result of which Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under Section 420 I.P.C. against the appellants. While the complaint was pending before the Court of the Magistrate, the parties entered into a compromise on 22.7.1971 under which the appellants undertook to pay the loan of Rs. 50,000/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum on or before 21.7.1972. An application was filed before the Court for allowing the parties to compound the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1307; (1979)81PLR379; (1980)1SCC246; 1979(11)LC471(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment. dated October 15, 1965, of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh.2. The appellant is the landlord; the respondent is the tenant. The appellant made an application on May 2, 1974 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') before the Rent Controller, Bhiwani for ejectment of the tenant respondent from the shop in dispute on the ground that the respondent had failed to pay rent for the period from February 1, 1964 to March 31, 1964 in addition to house-tax and water-tax. According to the appellant's application, the respondent was to pay Rs. 50/- p.m. as rent. 3. On May 25, 1964, which was the date of first hearing, the respondent made an application to the Rent Controller, stating that he had deposited Rs. 109 37 np. in the Government Treasury under the orders of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-Senior Sub Judge on April 14. 1964 towards the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1537; 1979CriLJ962; 1983(13)ELT1611(SC); (1980)1SCC206
A.D. Koshal, J.1. By this judgment we shall dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 496, 497 and 498 of 1976 and No, 321 of 1977 as well as Special Leave Petition No. 490 of 1979, all of which are directed against a common judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27th July 1976.2. The number of persons accused at the trial giving rise to the appeals and petition above-mentioned was 14. For the purpose of better appreciating the facts of the case they may be classified under three heads as shown in the following tables:TABLE I ____________________________________________________________________ Serial No. Name of accused Description of accused No. ____________________________________________________________________ 1. A.V. Damle Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs, Dahanu. 2. J.A. Naidu Inspector, Central Excise and Customs, Dahanu. 3. S.M. Kelkar Sub-Inspector, Central Excise and Customs, Dahanu. 5. M.M. Keer, Sepoys, Central Excise and Cus- 6. M.C. Nikam, toms, Dahanu, ________________...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1767; 1979CriLJ1341; (1979)3SCC322; 1979(11)LC804(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 24-3-1972 by which a revision petition of the accused who was convinced under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, was dismissed and a plea raised by the present appellant that the order of confiscation of his truck be cancelled, was over-ruled. In the instant case, we are not at all concerned with merits of the conviction of the accused. The only point that arises for determination is, whether the order of the Magistrate directing the confiscation of the truck under Section 7(1)(b) of the Essential Commodities Act as it stood in 1969 is legally valid. The appellant had filed a petition before the High Court under Section 561A praying that the order of the Magistrate was extremely harsh and worked serious Injustice to the appellant which property worth one lac has been confiscated for an attempt to export from Haryana to Delhi 75 maunds of cattle fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1434; 1979CriLJ1092; 1980Supp(1)SCC408; 1979(11)LC425(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. 1. This appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dt. 21/25 6-74 by which the High Court reversed the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting the appellants under Section 302 IPC and convicted them only under Section 304(1) and sentenced to seven years and 5 years R.I. The appellant No. 1 was sentenced to seven years R I. and the other appellants were sentenced to five years each because of their young age The facts have been detailed in the judgments of the Court below and and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the High Court and of the Sessions Judge. The occurrence in the course of which the deceased was assaulted, took place suddenly and after hot exchange of abuses, which took place between the deceased and the appellants. The appellants are said to...
Tag this Judgment!