Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC927; (1981)83BOMLR597; 1981CriLJ468; 1983(13)ELT1645(SC); (1981)2SCC458; [1981]2SCR735; 1981(13)LC134(SC)
A.D. Koshal, J.1. The respondent in this case was convicted by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate. 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay for an offence under clause (a) read with clause (i) of Section 135 of the Customs Act, another under Clause (b) read with Clause (i) of that section and still another under Rule 126(H)(IA) read with Rule 126-P (ii) and (iv) of the Defence of India Rules. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rupees 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to rigorous imprisonment for 4-1/2 months on each of the first two counts, and to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the third count, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.2. The conviction recorded against and the sentence imposed upon the respondent were challenged by him right up to this Court which remanded the case to the Bombay High Court for a fresh decision. Before the High Court, no challenge was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2101; 1981(1)SCALE229; (1981)2SCC141; [1981]2SCR727; [1981]47STC298(SC); 1981(13)LC227(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises the question whether cm true construction of Entry No. 15 of the Notification No. ST-II-4949/X-10(2)-74 dated May 30, 1975 issued under Section 3-A of U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the negotiated sale of a Thermal Power Plant by appellant No. 1 to appellant No. 2 is exigible to sales tax thereunder?2. The short facts giving rise to the question may be stated: A Thermal Power Plant at Rampur comprising seven boilers, five turbines together with its associate auxiliaries, components and accessories originally belonged to the U. P. State Electricity Board. The Board after selling it in working condition to appellant No. 1 on May 29, 1974 for Rs. 41.31 lakhs called upon the latter to pay sales tax thereon which was paid under protest. Appellant No. 1 used it for generating electricity from May 29, 1974 to Sept. 30, 1975. As the power position improved in the State of U. P. appellant No. 1 discontinued the generation of electricity thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1621; [1983]53CompCas107(SC); (1981)0GLR1067; 1981(1)SCALE223; (1981)2SCC436; [1981]2SCR718
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. By our Order dated 21-1-1981, we had already allowed the petition and directed the detenu to be released forthwith. We now proceed to set out the reasons for the order which we passed on 21-1-1981.2. The writ petition and the criminal special leave arise out of the same subject matter, namely, that the petitioner Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya) was detained by an order passed by the Home Minister of the State of Gujarat on 9-9-1980 under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act.3. The Petitioner/detenu in the first instance filed a petition for habeas corpus in the High Court of Gujarat which was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 25-11-1980. The detenu thereafter filed a petition for special leave against the order of the High Court and also a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in this Court. Both the petition for special leave and the writ petition have been heard together....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981(1)SCALE830; (1981)3SCC524; 1981(13)LC268(SC)
1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code of which he had been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay and sentenced in consequence to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months as well as a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.2. In brief the prosecution case was to the effect that one Dhanpal who had crossed half the width of a 50 feet wide road and had then become stationary in order to let the vehicular traffic pass before he crossed over, was suddenly hit by the motor-cycle which the respondent was riding while trying to overtake a bus. The result of the impact, according to the prosecution, was that Dhanpal was dashed to the ground and was run over by the bus between which and the deceased there was a distance of only 4 to 5 feet before the impact.3. The facts found...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1008; 1981CriLJ713; 1981(1)SCALE834; (1981)3SCC207; 1981(13)LC321(SC)
1. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of which he was convicted by the Special Judge, Sangrur and was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 100/- the sentence in default of fine being rigorous imprisonment for a month.2. According to the case for the prosecution, the respondent had accepted a bribe of Rs. 50/- from two partners of a book-binding firm of Sangrur, known as M/s. Royal Book Binders, after a trap had been laid for his apprehansion. Out of the two partners, one has fully supported the prosecution with a deposition to the effect that he and his partner had handed over currency notes worth Rs. 50/- over which some powder had been sprinkled by the police, to the respondent who then put the same into a purse and placed the purse in his pocket. His partner, namely, Ramesh Kumar (P. W. 3), has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC368
Order 1. Heard counsel. Special leave granted. 2. In view of the fact that the parties are closely related we grant them permission to compound the offences under Sections 324 and 325 of the Penal Code. The order of conviction and sentence is accordingly set aside and the accused are acquitted. 3. The appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of this order....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1694; 1981(1)SCALE218; (1981)2SCC66; [1981]2SCR712; 1981(13)LC155(SC)
Baharul Islam, J.1. This appeal by the State of Punjab and two others, namely, the Collector, Rupar District and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Rapar, is on a certificate granted by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in respect of its judgment in Letters Patent Appeal holding the acquisition of the land in question to be bad in law on the grounds that the Food Corporation of India for which the Land in question was sought to be acquired was not a 'Company' within the meaning of Section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act that the land had also not been acquired for a public purpose and that the State could acquire the land under that Act only for a public purpose or for the purpose of a Company.2. The material facts of the case may be stated thus. Nine Biswas of the disputed land situated within the municipal area of Morinda in the District of Rupar was owned by respondent No. 1, Raja Ram,, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are Raja Ram's s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1200; 1981(1)SCALE835; (1981)2SCC268; 1981(13)LC135(SC)
A.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioners in these five petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the Technological Institute of Textiles, Bhiwani are agreed that all the thirteen petitioners shall stand admitted to the said institute as from today and shall be allowed to take the supplementary examination which is being held for the benefit of those 23 students who, according to the petitioners, were admitted even though they did not so deserve on merits. We order accordingly. We further find no substance in the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Desai on behalf of the institute that the petitions should be thrown out on the ground of delay. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court within about two months of the impugned admission and the gap represents a very reasonable time for the petitioners to take action at law. We may make it clear, however, that if the petitioners had delayed the institution of their petitions by, say, four months or so, we ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2008b; 1981CriLJ1689; (1982)1SCC349
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal, Special leave granted was confined to the question of sentence only.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the judgments of the Courts below, we find that in the peculiar circumstances of this case and having regard to the very old age of the appellant Shahzade. who is more than 77 year of age, there is some room for reduction in the sentence. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of the appellant under Section 452 from four years to six months' rigorous imprisonment and make it concurrent with the sentence awarded under Section 323 read with Section 34. I.P.C.3. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1548; 1981CriLJ1135; 1981(1)SCALE836; 1981Supp(1)SCC80; 1981(13)LC178(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a Judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dated the 7th May, 1979.2. The main grievance of the appellants is that the High Court erred in law in not fully considering the effect of the documents produced by the prosecution and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. before finding that there were sufficient grounds for framing charges against them. A similar criticism was made by the appellants in respect of the Judgment of the Special Judge also.3. We have heard counsel for the appellants and have gone through the Judgments of the courts below. Both the trial and the High Court have generally given a brief survey of the evidence sought to be adduced against the appellants. It is true that the High Court has not gone into the details or the pros and cons of the matter. This was obviously because that is not the stage when the Court could enter into meticulous consideration of the evidence and materials. The High Court h...
Tag this Judgment!