Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1981)2SCC757
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J.1. In this petition the vires of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act 16 of 1976) has been challenged on the ground that this section is violative of Articles 19, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The point involved is a very substantial question of law as to the interpretation and application of various articles of the Constitution and would have far-reaching consequences, not only, in the State of U.P. but in other States, if they choose to follow suit and adopt the stand taken by the U.P. legislature. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was introduced by the Parliament as being applicable to the entire country. Perhaps it may be reasonably argued that the State (U.P.) legislature was competent to pass this legislation as it has received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) and the impugned Act would prevail in the State of U.P. The question, however, remains whether or not the impugned Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1578; 1981CriLJ998; 1981Supp(1)SCC18
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirming the conviction of Ajmer Singh, Mohar Singh, Jaggar Singh and Baldev Singh under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life. The prosecution case has been detailed in the Judgment of the High Court and the trial Court and need not be re stated here.2. It appears that on 8th March, 1971, an altercation between the deceased and the accused seems to have taken place over some irrigation dispute, when the accused wanted to irrigate the land out of turn. In the course of the irrigation the deceased Kartar Singh is said to have been assaulted by the accused by the front and the blunt sides of the spades with which the earth was being dug. Kartar Singh was taken to the hospital and on receipt of a report there from ASI, Nirmal Singh, the Investigating Officer reached the hospital and record ed a statement (Ext. P/19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1392; 1981CriLJ1014; 1981(1)SCALE925; 1981(Supp)SCC28
1. This appeal under Section 2 of the Enlargement of the Supreme Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act and also under Section 379 of the CrPC is directed against the Judgment of the Patna High Court dated 13th April, 1976, by which the High Court reversed the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting the appellants and convicted them under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The narration of the prosecution case is given in the Judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary to repeat the same here. The case arose out of a dacoity said to have been committed in the house of the complainant, PW-Darbari Sao on the night of 24th May, 1965 at about 8.45 P.M. According to the prosecution some unknown persons including the appellants entered the house, assaulted inmates, killed one of them and looted away properties worth thousands of rupees. There is no clear evidence to show that the deceased Kameshwer Sao was actually killed by one of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1535a; 1981(1)SCALE927; (1981)3SCC16; 1981(13)UJ375(SC)
1. Respondents-landlords, filed suit No. 56/63 against the appellant-tenant for recovering possession of the building more particularly described at the foot of the plaint. This suit was contested by the appellant on diverse grounds. The trial Court held that the suit would be governed by the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 ('1947 Act' for short), and the appellant-defendant was not liable to be evicted. In accordance with this finding the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed with costs.2. Respondents preferred First Appeal Mo. 172/64 to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A Division Bench of the High Court held that the lease was a lease of the land that is open site only and that once the original lease determined by efflux of time the appellant-tenant had to vacate and handover possession of the land to the lessor or his successors along with the new construction without any right to claim compensation thereof. In reaching this conclusion the High...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1983)1SCC375
R.B. Mishra and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. The short point that arises in this appeal by special leave is regarding the validity of the deeds of gift executed by the tenure-holder in favour of Chandra Kanta widow of Rajinder Kumar and another in favour of his grandson Raj Kishore. Both these deeds of gift were executed on February 21, 1970. The Prescribed Authority rejected the deeds of gift and held that the deeds of gift were not bona fide and really meant to evade the ceiling law. On appeal the District Judge affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority and held that as the tenure-holder continued to be in possession of the land covered by the deeds of gift, the gift was not acted upon. The High Court affirmed the order of the District Judge.2. Mr Asthana appearing for the appellant submitted that the finding arrived at by the District Judge is contrary to the evidence on record. It was pointed out that from the mutation record, it is manifest that the donees were entered ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991LabIC1650; (1983)3SCC38b
A.D. Koshal and; E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.1. We have gone through Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. We are of the view that under sub-section (3) of Section 24, the report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be conclusive evidence only against a person from whom the sample had been taken and who had the opportunity to notify his intention to contest its correctness as mentioned therein but had not availed of such opportunity.2. Sub-section (4) comes into operation when the sample has not already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory. Where a person has under sub-section (3) of Section 24 notified his intention of adducing evidence in contravention of the Insecticide Analyst's report the Court may by its own motion, or in its discretion at the request of either the complainant or of the accused cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Court under Section 22(6) to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory which shal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1177; 1981(1)SCALE655; (1981)3SCC260; 1981(13)LC272(SC)
1. This judgment will dispose off both the appeals which arise out of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on the 7th of August, 1979 in an Election Petition filed by B. Venkatarayappa who was a candidate for election to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly from Sidlaghatta Assembly Constituency. in the General Election held in 1978 and was defeated at the said election by S. Munishamappa, the Respondent No. 5 in the said petition who was declared elected. T. A. Kempegowda, Respondent No. 2, Narayanappa Respondent No. 3, and G. Papanna the Respondent No. 4 in the Election Petition were the other candidates who had also contested the said election and had been defeated. In the said Election Petition filed by Venkatarayappa under Section 81 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Petitioner had prayed for a declaration that the election of Munishamappa was void under Section 9A of the Act and also for a declaration u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC382
D.A. DESAI, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This is an appeal in which the High Court declined to examine the appeal on merits on the ground that there is a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. The appellant was in jail. He has submitted an application explaining the circumstances in which the delay occurred in filing the appeal. Having regard to those circumstances, we think that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the only ground that the appeal is barred by limitation. There is a good ground for condoning the delay. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal as time barred and remit the case to the High Court to admit it as appeal and dispose it of on merits. Liberty to move the High Court for bail....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1698; (1981)3SCC128
R.S. Pathak, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st October, 1980 of the Allahabad High Court maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellants under the second part of Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Code.3. The learned Sessions Judge tried the accused for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 but convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. An appeal was filed in the High Court through counsel but when it was taken up for hearing counsel did not appear, and when it was taken up again some time later counsel applied for adjournment on the ground that he was busy arguing a case in another court. The learned single Judge of the High Court did not accept the request and proceeded with the case with the assistance of the Deputy Government Advocate for the State, and he thereafter dismissed the appeal. The High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1148; (1981)83PLR486; 1981(1)SCALE594; (1981)2SCC557; [1981]3SCR330; 1981(13)LC385(SC)
1. These two appeals by certificate are directed against judgments dated 9.10.69 and 14.1.1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 553 of 1968 and 570 of 1969 by which the contentions raised by the appellants ini the two appeals were rejected. After the matter came up in the C Court the two appeals were consolidated as they arose out of almost the same subject-matter and involved identical points. The facts which have given rise to these appeals lie within a very narrow compass and may be briefly summarised thus.2. The appellants were refugees from Pakistan and Sant Singh Nalwa was allotted 63 standard acres and 81 units in village Margha-in and another area of 19 standard acres and 5 1/4 units in Garden Colony in Jundla which were entered as sailab land in the revenue records. The other appellant, Kartar Kaur, was allotted 96 acres, 3 bighas and 13 biswas in the same district. These lands were given to the appellants as they were displaced persons. Afte...
Tag this Judgment!