Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1544; 1979CriLJ969; (1979)81PLR644; (1979)2SCC387; [1979]3SCR625
Fazal Ali, J.1. These appeals by certificate arise out of a common Judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi and will be disposed of by us by one judgment. In Appeals Nos. 152-153/72, one Gian Singh sold toffees to the Food Inspector and as the toffees were found to be adulterated, a prosecution was launched against him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Gian Singh, however, produced in course of the trial a warranty given by the distributors and manufacturers as a result of which the Magistrate acquitted accused Gian Singh. After having acquitted Gian Singh, the Magistrate issued notice under Section 20A against the Respondents for being impleaded and prosecution on the ground that the articles manufactured by the distributors were adulterated. The respondents went up in revision to the Sessions Judge which was dismissed. But on further revision to the High Court the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Magistrate impleading th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1393; (1979)3SCC578; [1979]3SCR599
Shinghal, J.1. This appeal is by a certificate of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the valuation of the subject matter and is directed against its judgment dated February 4, 1969.2. The State Government acquired 2 acres and 79 cents of the land of the appellants in Kurnool town, for locating a bus depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation. It was arable land within the municipal limits of the town, with two trees and an old compound wall. Its possession was taken by the State Government on May 25, 1962. The market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 27,042.53 at the rate of Rs. 2/- per square yard. The compound wall and the trees were valued at Rs. 930/- and after allowing a solatium of 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent per annum, the total compensation was worked out to Rs. 33,069.12. N. Jayarama Reddy, Y. Prabhakar Reddy and C. Manikya Reddy, who were the three owners of the land, accepted that compensation under protest and applied for a reference under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1980Supp(1)SCC766; 1979(11)LC410(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal must succeed on a very short point. Apart from the question of the application of the Act or the Amended Act or Notification, it appears that no notification was produced before the Court that the Brick Kiln put up by the appellant was on a land within the notified area of the municipality, so as to amount to an encroachment. PW 1 who is the Municipal Town Committee Overseer has not at all stated that this Brick Kiln feel in the notified area of the Municipality. On the other hand, the witness in cross examination stated thus:We have not furnished any area of our encroached land in this case. No material also was placed in this case to show that the land encroached is within our Municipality.From the statement of this witness it is manifest that the prosecution did not furnish any area of encroached land nor any material to show that the land encroached was within the municipality. In this view of the matter, the prosecution launched against the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1505; 1979CriLJ1122; 1980Supp(1)SCC769; 1979(11)LC412(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. 1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellants have been convicted under Section 326/34 and 326/149 and have been sentenced to R I. for seven years as modified by the High Court. They were also convicted under Section 148 and sentenced to three years' R I. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and we do not find any error of law in this case.2. The central evidence in this case consists of a dying declaration made by the deceased before the Sub Inspector which has been treated as FIR. The dying declaration was made within an hour of the assault when the deceased was fully conscious. Both the Courts below have relied upon the dying declaration and have held that the dying declaration is true. All the appellants are named in the dying declaration and even the witnesses Nos. 1 and 3 have been mentioned clearly as having seen the occurrence, in the said dying declaration. These witnesses have also been believed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1454; 48(1979)CLT533(SC); (1979)3SCC393; 1979(11)LC426(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Crl. Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant was acquitted by the Trial Court but on appeal preferred by the State to the High Court, the order of acquittal by the Trial Court was reversed and converted into conviction as stated above. The facts of the case have been fully detailed in the judgment of the courts below. 2. Mr. Puri appearing in support of the appeal has submitted that even on the findings of the Trial Court no case under Section 302 IPC is made out on the proved facts. Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the Respondent conceded that in the circumstances of the present case, the case squarely falls not under Section 302 IPC but under Section 304(1) and the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. After having gone through the judgment of the High Court and that of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1433; 48(1979)CLT515(SC); 1979CriLJ1091; (1979)3SCC423; 1979(11)LC436(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Crl. Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 302 but the State filed an appeal to the High Court and the High Court reversed the order of acquittal of the appellant and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and the Learned Sessions Judge and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The approach made by the Sessions Judge was manifestly wrong and absolutely perverse. The High Court has pointed out in its judgment that the Sessions Judge came to a clear finding that the witnesses examined in the case i.e. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 were reliable and nothing was elicited from their cross examination which may go to discredit their testimony. In spite of this clear finding the learned Sessions Judge appear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1073; 1979LabIC811; (1979)IILLJ6SC; (1979)3SCC478; [1979]3SCR584; 1979(1)SLJ286(SC)
Desai, J.1. These two appeals by special leave arise from a common judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 560 and 564 of 1974 and Civil Writ No. 6781/74. The controversy raised in these appeals turns upon the construction of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 ('Service Rules' for short). A few relevant facts as alleged by respondents 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal No. 2903/78 who moved Civil Writ No. 825 of 1972 in the High Court would highlight the problem posed in these appeals.2. Respondents 1 and 2, Gurdip Singh and Dalip Singh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Punjab, Inspector General of Police, Punjab, and six others including the present appellants, praying for a direction to confirm them in Punjab Police Service. Respondents 1 and 2 alleged that they were promotees to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police of February, 1961 and January, 1961 respectively having been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1513; 1979CriLJ1130; (1979)3SCC344; 1979(11)LC422(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. A detailed narrative of the prosecution story has been given in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.2. The entire conviction of the appellant is founded on the oral dying declaration made by the deceased Nalluri Vankatanarasamme to PWs 1 and 2. PW 1 was the brother of the deceased and PW 2 owner of the shop where PW 1 used to work. According to the prosecution the relations between the husband, accused 2 and the deceased wife were not very cordial and even though there was some sort of a compromise, the wife used to live in a separate portion of the house. According to the dying declaration made by the deceased, the two appellants appear to have forcibly administered lethal dose of endrine poison which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased. The oral dying declarati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1456; 1979CriLJ1119; 1979Supp(1)SCC407; 1979(11)LC779(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life as also under Section 307/34 and sentenced to five years' R. I. A detailed narrative of the prosecution story has been given in the judgment of the High Court and the Sessions Judge and it is not necessary for us to repeat it all over again.2. Appearing for the appellant Mr. Goswami has raised a short point before us. He submitted that the evidence clearly shows that there was animus between the complainant and the appellant and the appellant was falsely implicated due to enmity. It appears that in the FIR it was categorically stated that Umasharskar alongwith Ram Lakhan and Deena Nath armed with Kanta reached the place of occurrence and all of them said that the deceased should be killed. Yet this allegation has been given a complete go by in the evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1121; (1979)3SCC212; [1979]3SCR572; 1979(11)LC663(SC)
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. In respect of an extent of ten acres and 23 guntas of land in Survey No. 215 of Village Nathare, Harauax, one Tukaram Patla Power was a protected tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, as amended by Act 26 of 1946. The landlords, Vithal Kulkarni, Vasudeo Kulkarni and Krishnaji Kulkarni gave a notice to Tukaram on 8th March, 1948 under Section 7(1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, alleging that they required the land for their personal cultivation. In December, 1948, the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 was repealed and replaced by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (57 of 1948). Thereafter, on 25th April, 1949, the Kulkarni brothers filed Tenancy Case No. 102 of 1949, before the Aval Karkun, to recover possession of the land from Tukaram. The application was dismissed by the Aval Karkun on 29th August, 1949, but in Tenancy Appeal No. 20 of 1950 filed by the landlords, the Collector of South Satara, Sangli, by his order dated 9th May, 1950,...
Tag this Judgment!