Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC516; (1980)4SCC503; [1981]1SCR981; 1981(13)LC213(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. The appellants applied for temporary permits under Section 68-F (1-C) for plying the passenger vehicles on Khurja-Pahasu-Chhatari-Dabai-Rajghat-Ramghat-Atrauli route (route for short) which applications came to be rejected by the State Transport Authority and their appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and a writ petition to the High Court of Allahabad did not meet with success.2. It is a common ground that in respect of the route a scheme has been prepared and published under Section 68-C of Chapter IV-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The route in question is an interregional route and therefore an application for temporary permit for the period intervening between the date of publication of the scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme has to be made to the State Transport Authority under Section 68-F (1-C). Ignoring the previous history of the litigation for the present, it may be noticed that the appellants made applications to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC427; 1980CriLJ1484; (1980)4SCC586; [1981]1SCR987
E.S. Venkataramiah, J1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1972 convicting the appellant, Dara Singh, of an offence punishable under Section 23F of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (Act No. 7 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to imprisonment for a term of one year with a direction that the said sentence should be served by him concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on him in another case on a charge of murder.2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarised thus: On March 28, 1963 foreign currencies amounting to 185 and U.S. $ 13060 besides Indian currency amounting to Rs. 1,300/- were seized from the appellant by the Railway Police at the Railway Station at Sangrur. Thereupon proceedings were initiated against the appellant for contravention of Sections 4 and 9 of the Act under Section 23(1)(a) read with Section 23D of the Act before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC411; 1980LabIC1321; (1980)4SCC562; [1981]1SCR971; 1981(1)SLJ115(SC); 1980(12)LC985(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by which the petitioners ask for an appropriate writ quashing the orders dated May 29, 1965 and May 16, 1975 issued by respondent 2, the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi, and for striking down the provisions in Col. 10 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules. 19692. Petitioner, 1 joined the Posts and Telegraphs Audit Office of the Government of India at Delhi on July 31, 1956 as a Lower Division Clerk. In 1961 he qualified in the departmental examination for promotion as an Upper Division Clerk. On May 4, 1962 he joined the Savings Bank Control Organisation and Savings Bank Internal Check Organisation (SBCO-ICO), as an Upper Division Clerk. Petitioner 2 joined the P and T Audit Office at Madras on June 3, 1950 as a Lower Division Clerk. On passing the departmental examination he was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk on September 10, 1958. He joined SBCO-ICO on April 1, 1963 in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC611; 1981CriLJ3; (1980)4SCC552; 1981(13)LC121(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. On October 17, 1970, a Food Inspector of the Delhi Municipal Corporation purchased a sample of Dal Biji from the shop of the appellant. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported on October 27, 1970 that the sample was adulterated because of the presence of unpermitted coal tar dye. Thereafter there was a stale-mate for about two years. A complaint was finally filed against the appellant on November 13, 1972. On April 17, 1973, the appellant moved the Trial Court to send another part of the sample for analysis to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. This was accordingly done. A sample was received by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta on May 2, 1973. After analysis the Director, Central Food Laboratory sent his report on October 26, 1973. The precise date of analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory is not evident from the record. According to the report the sample was adulterated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC431; 1980CriLJ1487; (1980)4SCC544; [1981]1SCR962
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. By our orders dated October 7, 1980, we directed the release of the three detenus whose detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, was challenged in these three Writ Petitions. We now proceed to state our reasons.2. Rajesh Soni, the detenu in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4344 of 1980 was arrested on June 27, 1980. The order of detention as well as the grounds of detention were served on him on the same day. On July 27, 1980, his Advocate addressed a communication to the Administrator, Delhi Administration, Delhi, alleging that the grounds were vague, (irrelevant and non-existent, that his client was unable to make any representation as he had not been given copies of the statements, documents and materials relied upon by the detaining authority in arriving at the satisfaction that Rajesh Soni should be detained, that in view of the time limit prescribed by Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA and in view of Article...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC897; 1981CriLJ23; 1980Supp(1)SCC489
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated May 16, 1973, of the High Court of Allahabad. It arises out of these facts.2. The respondent - Shanker (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is a resident of village Gauri, Police Station Hamirpur. He had deserted his wife about 5 years before the occurrence in question. Ever since, his wife was living with her parents. The accused had an evil eye on Panchania deceased, wife of Manbodhan (P. W. 2). About a year before her murder, the accused had attempted to ravish her in a field. On returning to the village she complained about her molestation, to her husband, Manbodhan. Manbodhan approached the village head-man. Raghunath who convened a Panchayat to consider Panchania's complaint. The Panchas called the accused, and reprimanded and warned him to behave in future. Manbodhan did not report the matter to the police to avoid defamation of his wife which is generally a concomitant consequence of init...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1980Supp(1)SCC468
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.— 1. On an earlier occasion when this case had come up for hearing we had suggested to counsel on both sides to adjust the dispute regarding bonus. The Delhi Development Authority through the Attorney-General agrees that the amount of bonus will be paid but out of grace and not as of right. Shri Mridul, appearing for the workmen, contends that annual legal proceedings for enforcement of the claim to bonus can be avoided if the right to bonus is recognised by the Union of India. In fact he asserts that the workmen have such a right enforceable in law. Having heard counsel briefly we consider that there is force in the submissions of Shri Mridul. But in view of the fact that the Delhi Development Authority is willing to pay the amount claimed by the workmen there is no need for adjudication of the right at present. With this observation we direct the Delhi Development Authority to pay the sum involved in this case within two months from today. The learned Attor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC479; (1980)4SCC556; 1980(12)LC988(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court in which her motion for a writ of certiorary to quash an Order No. K/MM/65 dated November 4, 1965, issued by the Mining Officer, Jabalpur, respondent 6 for and on behalf of Collector, Jabalpur, respondent 1, and a prayer for a writ of mandamus seeking to restrain the State of Madhya Pradesh and its officers and servants from recovering the amount involved in the writ petition, were negatived.2. A brief re'sume' of facts would help in focussing attention on the dispute involved in this appeal. Appellant applied for and obtained a quarry lease for excavating limestone in an area covering 25.32 acres in Jabalpur District, under the relevant Minor Mineral Rules then in force. The lease was executed by the appellant and the State of Madhya Pradesh on June 26, 1961. Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 ('1961 Rules' for short...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC457; 51(1981)CLT295(SC); 1980CriLJ1507; 1980Supp(1)SCC434
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Padman Meher and his son Bhagabat Meher who were tried along with Bidhu Meher on a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bolangir Kalhandi but, who were convicted, on appeal by the State by the High Court of Orissa under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life are the appellants in this appeal. The case of the prosecution briefly was that the appellants were in possession of and cultivating the lands of the deceased Narayan and his uncle P.W. 1. P.W. 1 was living in a different village from his childhood and it was for that reason his lands were being cultivated by his relatives, the accused. The deceased had sold some and leased out the rest of his lands to the accused. A few months before the occurrence P.W. 1 came to the village and got a Panchayat convened to recover possession of his lands. He also petitioned to the Gram Panchayat. In this petition he m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC20a; 1980CriLJ1278; (1980)4SCC459; 1980()WLN540
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The respondent was employed in 1961 as Officer-in-Charge, Desert and Gangetic Plains, Zoological Survey of India at Jodhpur. A criminal case was registered against him on December 31, 1962 which was investigated by the Special Police Establishment, Jaipur. Ultimately a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent in the Court of the Special Judge for Rajasthan, Jaipur City, The Special Judge convicted him under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further one month, on the first count and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees 100/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another one month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Sanction for prosecution of the respondent was granted...
Tag this Judgment!