Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC928; 1981CriLJ597; (1981)1SCC627; [1981]2SCR408
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This case has now come before us after service of notice on the State of Bihar. When this case was taken up for appearing by us on 2nd December, 1980, we expressed our displeasure that the State of Bihar had not chosen to appear in answer to the notice, but this expression of displeasure was made by us on the assumption that the notice was served on the State of Bihar. We are however informed by Mr. K.G. Bhagat, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar that the notice of the writ petition was served upon the State only on 6th December, 1980 and that is the reason why it was not possible for the State to appear before us on 2nd December, 1980. We accept this explanation offered by Mr. K. G. Bhagat and exonerate the State of Bihar from remissness in appearing before the Court on 2nd December, 1980.2. The State has filed before us a counter affidavit sworn by Tarkeshwar Parshad, Under Secretary, Home (Police) Department of the State Government g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC695; (1981)1SCC431; [1981]2SCR405; 1981(13)LC70(SC)
Koshal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated July 27, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirming the decrees passed by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the land in dispute in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was a tenant of the disputed land when it was sold to the appellants by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 through a registered sale deed dated September 29, 1967.2. The suit was resisted by the appellants with the counter-claim that they, and not respondent No. 1, were in possession of the land on the relevant date as tenants inasmuch as it had been leased out to them by their vendor Kanti Prasad two years prior to the sale, i.e., in the year 1965. The decrees passed by the courts below proceed on the basis of evidence to the effect that the name of respondent No. 1 was recorded as a tenant in the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (Ex. P. 1) and consistently t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC641; 1981(29)BLJR109; 1981CriLJ159; (1981)83PLR194; (1981)1SCC75; [1981]2SCR402; 1981(13)LC56(SC)
Koshal, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order dated the 6th November, 1979 of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the entire proceedings in a criminal case against the 7 respondents who were facing a charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in the Court of a Magistrate at Bhagalpur.2. The case was initiated through a report lodged with the police on the 9th of April 1960 with the allegation that the respondents' firm which held a licence for dealing in iron and steel had misappropriated a large quantity of G.C. sheets meant for distribution to quota and sub-quota holders. After investigation a police report was submitted on the 23rd December 1962 to a Bhagalpur Magistrate who took congnizance of the case on the 25th January 1963. However, the charge against the respondents was framed as late as 15th September 1967 and since then the progress of the case was very tardy as the orders passed therein were challenged in appeals or on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC796; (1981)1SCC561; [1981]2SCR398; 1981(13)LC68(SC)
Koshal J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated November 8, 1968 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay allowing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and declaring that Sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. The respondent hails from Uttar Pradesh. In 1940 he obtained the degree of 'Ayurved Shastri' from the All India Adarsh Vidwat Parishad, Kanpur, On November 12, 1940 his name was listed by the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh, in the register of Vaids and Hakims. He practised as a Vaid in Agra thereafter upto 1955 when he migrated to Bhopal where he was registered as an Ayurvedic Doctor by the Medical Council of the Government of Bhopal under the Bhopal Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1935. He migrated to Bombay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1240; 1981CriLJ751; 1980Supp(1)SCC352
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1.In both these appeals special leave was granted limited to the question of nature of offence and sentence.2. The learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 163/74 convicted appellant Bhupendra Singh (original accused 1) for having committed an offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and appellants in the connected Criminal Appeal (original accused 2-5) were convicted in the same trial for having committed an offence under Section 324 read with Section 149, I.P.C. On the question of sentence the learned trial Judge observed that, all the accused persons belonged to age group of 19-20 years and at the time of the offence they were studying in a college. After taking into consideration the circumstances attendant upon the commission of the offence the learned Judge came to the conclusion that this was a fit case in which the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the accused with the condition that accused Bhupendra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1227; 1981CriLJ733; (1981)3SCC720
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated Oct. 31, 1974, of the High Court of Bombay, whereby reversing the acquittal of Angad, appellant, the High Court convicted him under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The prosecution ease was as follows:2. One Shankar has three sons and a daughter. The appellant, Angad, is the son and the original accused 2, Sumanbai, is Shankar's daughter; Laxmibai, the original accused 3 is Shankar's wife. Shankar had a brother, named Kundahk, who was joint in residence with him. The two brothers held about 30 acres of land. Kundalik died survived by his widow, Mathurbai, (who is the deceased person in this case).3. About five or six years before the occurrence in question, the relations between Mathurbai deceased on one hand, and Shankar and his family on the other had become strained. Mathurbai claimed to get her share partitioned for separate enjoyment. Shankar was unwilling and refused to do so....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC939b; 1981(29)BLJR300; 1981CriLJ481; (1981)3SCC671
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This case before us is on a letter dated November 28, 1980 addressed to the Court by one Dr. Vasudha Dhagamwar, a researcher and Social Scientist working in the Santhal Praganas of the State of Bihar. It represents one more instance of the utter callousness and indifference of our legal and judicial system to the under-trial prisoners languishing in the jails. It seems that once a person accused of an offence is lodged in the jail everyone forgets about him and no one bothers to care what is happening to him. He becomes a mere ticket number-a forgotten specimen of humanity-cut off and alienated from the society, an unfortunate victim of a heartless legal and judicial system which consigns him to long unending years of oblivion in jail.2. Here is a case where four young boys who are designated as petitioners in the writ petition have been in Pakud sub-jail in Santhal Praganas for a period of about eight years without their trial having made any progress. They all bel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC765; 1981CriLJ325; (1981)2SCC35; [1981]2SCR384
Chandrachud, C.J.1. The appellant Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit who is 30 years of age, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, for offences under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the charge that on December 10, 1978 he raped a five year old girl called Sunita and thereafter committed her murder. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence of rape and to death for the offence of murder. The order of conviction and sentence having been confirmed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by its judgment dated February 27-28, 1980, he has filed this appeal by special leave.2. The appellant lives in a locality called Marwadipura in the town of Karanja, District Akola. His house is situated near a temple called Gopal Mandir, and a little beyond the temple is a public well. Ramrao Wagh, the father of the deceased Sunita, used to reside in a house near about the well.3. On December 10, 1978 at about 10-30 a.m., Sunita's mother ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC936; 1981CriLJ477; (1981)2SCC18; 1981(13)LC57(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1974 by Maharaj Singh and Hotam Singh, sons of Kanchana, and Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 1974 by Khilaku Singh alias Ajmer Singh, are directed against a common judgment, dated December 17, 1973, of the Rajasthan High Court, whereby the acquittal of these three appellants recorded by the trial court, was reversed and each of them was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, for the murder of Gupta and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appeals arise out of these facts : 2. Three or four days before Deepawali, on Oct. 27, 1967, Gupta deceased was proceeding in the company of the Sarpanch Jhandel Singh, Mohan Singh,Durge, Kanhaiya, Mohanle and Prabhu Kumar of village Soha to village Bari for making purchases for the coming Deepawali festival. At Kanchanpur Tonga Stand, they were looking for a tonga for going to Bari. The appellants Maharaj Singh, Hotam Singh and Khilku (hereinafter referred to as the accused) came ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1157; (1981)2SCC670
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. Special leave to appeal granted.2. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment, dated May 23, 1978, of the High Court of Allahabad, whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4499/77 arising out of Revenue Appeal No. 253/77 was dismissed.3. The Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (Act No. 1 of 1961) (as amended by U.P. Act 18 of 1973) issued notice to the appellant to show cause why 25.93 acres of land be not declared as surplus with him. In response to this notice, the appellant filed objections stating, inter alia, (i) that the entire land was unirrigated and it had been wrongly shown in the notice as irrigated land; (ii) that he had sold 40 acres of his land (20 acres to Pushpek Singh and 20 acres to Raghubir Singh Sondhi) on July 23, 1971 and August 9, 1971 by registered sale deeds, for adequate consideration and in good faith; and (iii) that the sales were effected to raise funds for constru...
Tag this Judgment!