Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1004; 1979CriLJ881; (1979)2SCC459; [1979]3SCR551
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court convicting the appellant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with Section 2(ix) Clause (a) & (g) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. This order was passed by the High Court in a revision filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the Order of the Trial Court which convicted the appellant under Section 7/15 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 2(ix)(k) of the Act and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500/-, a revision against this order to the Sessions Judge was unsuccessful and hence a further revision was taken by the Delhi Administration before the High Court.2. The facts of the case are detailed in the Judgment of the High Court and the Magistrate and we need not repeat the same all over again. The food Inspectors, namely,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1622; 1979LabIC1186; (1979)2SCC368; [1979]3SCR518
Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant, Gurdial Singh Fiiji, was selected for the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) in 1953 and was appointed as an Executive Magistrate on June 8, 1954. Respondents 8 to 15 are also members of the same Service, namely, the P.C.S., but they were selected and appointed to that Service after the appellant. They are all governed, in the matter of conditions of their service, by the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules 1930, as amended from time to time by the competent authority. The appellant was confirmed in the cadre on May 8, 1958 while respondents 8 to 15 were confirmed on diverse dates thereafter. In the gradation list circulated by the Government from time to time, respondents 8 to 15 were shown as junior to the appellant.2. In the year 1966, as a result of the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab, the appellant and respondents 8 to 16 were allocated to the State of Punjab. In 1966-67 an adverse entry was made in the confidential r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1549; 1979CriLJ1216; (1979)3SCC424; 1980(Supp)SCC719; 1979(11)LC527(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Assam High Court by which the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Judge was set aside and he has been convicted under Section 304(1) read with Section 149 and sentenced to R.I. for five years. There were other accused also, but this Court refused leave to them. The short point on which the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant was that there was no reliable evidence to show that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence. The appellant is alleged to have exhorted the other accused to assault the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge refuced to accept the case against the appellant because some of the eye-witnesses had not stated in their statements before the police that it was the appellant who exhorted the accused to assault the deceased. The High Court found with this line of reasoning on the ground that the statements of witnesses were not properly put to the witnesses. We...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1022; [1979(38)FLR344]; (1979)IILLJ14SC; (1979)2SCC286; [1979]3SCR504; 1979(1)SLJ308(SC)
Desai, J.1. Respondent J. Ahmed joined service in Assam State in 1945 and some time in 1959 came to be promoted to the Indian Administrative Service Cadre. In that very year he was posted as Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Nowgong District. While he was holding the aforementioned post, some time in the beginning of June 1960 there were large scale disturbances in Nowgong city and District area described in official parlance as 'language disturbances'. There was considerable damage to property. One Shri A.N. Kidwai, the then Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, undertook an inquiry into the causes of disturbances at Nowgong with a view to ascertaining the responsibility of District officials. After Shri Kidwai submitted his Report, the Government took the first step of suspending the respondent from service by an order dated 14th September. 1960. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam by his communication dated 13th September 1960 conveyed to the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1566; 1979CriLJ1137; (1979)3SCC474
S. Murtaza 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 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge who acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him. The State then filed an appea before the High Court against the order of acquittal which was successful and the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant as indicated above. A resume of the prosecution case has been given in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same over again.2. The entire conviction of the appellant is founded on the testimony of witness P.W. 1 Megha. The trial Court after considering the evidence of this witness completely disbelieved him and expressed doubts regarding his presence at the spot mainly on the following grounds:1. that while the witness definitely sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1127; 1979CriLJ919; (1979)3SCC319
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Kerala High Court upholding the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants. The appellants were convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 308 and sentenced to eight years R.I. They were also convicted under Sections 147 and 148 and other offenees. The charge against the accused was that they had entered into a conspiracy as members of nexalite party to raid the Police Station Kutttadi on the night/morning of the 17th/l8th December, 1969. In the course of the raid the polios station was attacked and its articles were burnt. No member of the Police Station or staff was able to Identify the raiders. The only evidence on the basis of which the appellants have been convicted may be categorised as follows:1. Evidence of P. W9. 17 and 18 to the effect that there was conspiracy to raid the Police Station In question in which the appellants have participated; 2. The evidence of P.W. 25 who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC984; (1979)3SCC47; [1979]3SCR494
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. It is how a matter of history that the erstwhile Portuguese Colonial Possessions of Goa, Daman and Diu became part of the Territory of India from 20th December, 1961. The territories of Goa, Daman and Diu were incorporated as a Union Territory by the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962, with effect from 20th December, 1961. The Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, repealing and re-enacting the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration Ordinance 1962, was enacted by Parliament to provide for the administration of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and for matters connected therewith. Section 5(1) of the Act declared that all laws in force immediately before the appointed day (20th December, 1961) in Goa, Daman and Diu or any part thereof shall continue to be in force therein until amended or repealed by a competent .Legislature or other competent authority. Section 5(2) enabled the Central Government, within two years from the appo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1284; 1979CriLJ875; (1979)2SCC297; [1979]3SCR482
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. P.S.R.Sadhanantham and four others were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, on various counts. Sadhanantham (A1) was convicted under Sections 148 and 302 Indian Penal Code while the four others were convicted under Sections 147, 323 and 149 read with 323. The first accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on the charge under Section 148. The others were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year on each of the counts on which they were convicted, the sentences to run concurrently. All the five accused preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madras. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all the accused of all the charges. Arunachalam the brother of the deceased has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Madras High Court after obtaining special leave from this Court on 26.7.1973. The special leave was granted against the first accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1027; 1980Supp(1)SCC157
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 have been convicted under Section 202 read with Section 149 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. They are further convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 for which they have been sentenced to two years' R.I. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. All the appellants were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge but the High Court on appeal by the State convicted them of the various charges mentioned above.2. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the judgment of the High Court. It appears that all the four eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 14 have given consistent and cogent evidence which has been accepted by the High Court after discussi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1028; (1979)3SCC644; 1980Supp(1)SCC338
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In these two appeals by special leave, the appellants, except Sita Ram who has been wrongly included as one of the appellants, have been convicted under Sections 302/149 and 302/34 and some of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and others to various terms of imprisonment under different Sections of I.P.C. It is not necessary to give the necessary particulars in the view that we take in this case. The prosecution case has been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and the Sessions Judge. We have gone through the judgment of the Sessions Judge; and the High Court and we do not find any error of law in the judgment of the High Court Mr. Gupta appearing for the appellants, submitted that the occurrence was the result of a fight between two factions and it was contended that all the members of one family have been implicated due to previous enmity. In order to fortify his argument, counsel for the appellants relies on the report given by one Ba...
Tag this Judgment!