Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1200; 1980Supp(1)SCC337
ORDER1. As stated by the counsel for the petitioner and the aggrieved party the parties have compromised this case. The conviction of the petitioner is under Sections 325 and 452, I.P.C. The former offence can be compounded with the permission of the court. We grant permission to the parties to compound the said offence. The effect of that is the acquittal of the petitioner in view of the provision of law contained in Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 325.2. The other offence under Section 452 is not compoundable. Under the circumstances, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner under the said provision of law we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. He may be released forthwith....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC271; (1980)3SCC587; 1980(12)LC742(SC)
ORDERY.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 which introduced Article 31A into the Constitution with retrospective effect, and Section 3 of the Constitution (4th Amendment) Act, 1955 which substituted a new Clause (1), Sub-Clauses (a) to (e), for the original Clause (1) with retrospective effect, do not damage any of the basic or essential features of the Construction or its basic structure and are valid and constitutional, being within the constituent power of the Parliament.2. Section 5 of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 introduced Article 31B into the Constitution which reads thus :31B Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 31A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void or to ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges an) of the rights conf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1682; (1980)4SCC179; [1980]3SCR1042
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is a group of 61 Writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 67 of 1976, on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution. For understanding the basis of that challenge, it will be enough to refer to the broad facts of two representative groups of petitions. The facts of writ petitions of 70 and 271 of 1977 are, by and large, typical of cases in which the petitioners claim to be lessees of coal mines, while the facts of writ petition 257 of 1977 are typical of cases in which the petitioners claim to be lessees of composite mines containing alternate seems of coal and fireclay. Most of the facts are undisputed and only a few of them are in controversy. 2. In writ petitions 270 and 271 of 1977, petitioner No. 1 claims to be the sole proprietor of 'S.D. Coal Company' which is engaged in coal business and coal min...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; [1983]1SCR145a
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This reference to the Constitution Bench raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied in Sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973.2. The reference has arisen in these circumstances :Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and dismissed his appeal.3. Bachan Singh's appeal by special leave, came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (consisting of Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The only question for consideration in the appeal was, whether the facts found by the Courts below would be 'special reasons' for awarding the death sentence as required under Section 354(3) of the CrPC 1973.4. Shri H.K. Puri, appearing as Amicu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1789; (1980)3SCC625; [1981]1SCR206; 1980(12)LC727(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia and P.S. Kailasam, JJ.1. Section 4 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into force with effect from January 8, 1977 amended Article 31C of the Constitution by substituting the words and figures 'all or any of the principles laid down in Part Iv for the words and figures 'the principles specified in Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Article 39'. Article 31C, as amended reads thus:31C. Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 31. no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31, and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that ft does not give effect to such policy:Provided that where such law ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1568; (1980)4SCC295; [1980]3SCR1143
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals by special leave and the writ petitions represent a last but desparate attempt by the class of land-holders in Andhra Pradesh to defeat an agrarian reform legislation enacted by the State for the benefit of the weaker sections of community. It is indeed a matter of regret that a, statute intended to strike at concentration of land in the hands of a few and to act as a great equaliser by reducing inequality in holding of land between the haves and the have-nots should have practically remained unimplemented for a period of over seven years. Unfortunately, this is the common fate of much of our social welfare legislation.2. We can boast of some of the finest legislative measures calculated to ameliorate the socio-economic conditions of the poor and the deprived and to reach social and economic justice to them, but regretably, a large part of such legislation has remained merely on paper, and the benefits of such legislation have not reached the common ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1227; 1980(6)ELT343(SC); 1980Supp(1)SCC174; [1980]3SCR1271; [1980]46STC63(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court holding that the turnover of pineapple fruit purchased for preparing pineapple slices for sale in sealed cans is not covered by Section 5-A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.2. The respondent, Messrs. Pio Food Packers ('the assessee'), carries on the business of manufacturing and selling canned fruit besides other products. In its return for the year 1973-74 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 the assessee claimed that a turnover of Rs. 3,64,138-89 representing the purchase of pineapple fruit was not covered by Section 5-A(1)(a) of the Act. It was asserted that the pineapple was converted into pineapple slices, pineapple jam, and pineapple squash and pineapple juice. Section 5-A(1)(a) of the Act provides :5-A- Levy of purchase tax-(1) Every dealer who, in the course of his business, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods the sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1975; (1980)4SCC95; [1980]3SCR1253
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The selection of candidates admitted to the Government Medical College, Jammu, for the academic year 1979-80 is challenged in these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution by some of the candidates who were riot selected. By notification published in the Jammu and Kashmir Government Gazette on June 21, 1979 applications were invited for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the aforesaid college. Only those candidates who had passed the Pre-Medical or Inter-Science or First Year T.D.C. (Medical Group) examination from the University of Jammu or any other equivalent examination and had secured not less than 50 percent marks in science subjects in aggregate (theory and practical) were eligible to apply for admission; however, for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, Bakarwal and Gujjar candidates and candidates from Ladakh district and 'Bad Pockets' the qualifying marks was 45 per cent. Candidates who had been selected or nominated by the Government of Jammu and Kash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2097; 1980Supp(1)SCC574; [1980]3SCR1181
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. These appeals, by special leave, directed against the Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jaswant Kaur's case, seek to challenge the vires of some of the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972) and according to the appellants some of the provisions are pivotal and run through the whole Act and, therefore, the entire Act is liable to be struck down.2. The Act (26 of 1972) received the assent of the President on 22-12-1972 and was published in the Official Gazette on 23-12-1972. Section 2 contained and even now contains the requisite declaration that it was enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. The Act was included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution on 7-9-1974 (vide : Item 72), and, thereby, it came under the protective umbrella of Article 31-B of the Constitution; however, on 9-9-1974 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1362; 1980Supp(1)SCC53; [1980]3SCR1302
D.A. Desai, J.1. Purity of election and secrecy of ballot, two central pillars supporting the edifice of Parliamentary democracy envisioned in the Constitution stand in confrontation with each other or are complimentary to each other, present the core problem in this appeal.2. First to the factual matrix. Punjab Legislative Assembly formed a constituency for electing members to the Council of States. On March 3, 1976, a notification was issued calling upon the members of Punjab Legislative Assembly to elect three members to the Council of States. The election programme was: March 10, 1976, was prescribed as the last date for filing nominations; the scrutiny of the nominations was to be made on Match 11, 1976; March 13, 1976, was the last date by which it was permissible to withdraw from the selection; in the event of contest, poll was to take place on March 27, 1976; counting was to be done on the same day. Respondent 4 Smt. Amarjit Kaur and respondent 5 Sat Pal Mittal were nominated a...
Tag this Judgment!