Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1775b; 1981CriLJ1705a; (1981)3SCC73
A.D. Koshal, J.1. Special leave granted. The appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and Sections 120 and 121 of the Railways Act and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count, a fine of Rs. 25/- on the second and a fine of Rs. 75/- on the third. He has compounded the offence first above mentioned with the injured person whose affidavit in that behalf is on the record and who is represented before us by Mr. A.P. Mohanty. We grant permission to the parties to compound the offence and acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 325 of the I.P.C. The appeal is accepted to that extent and is dismissed for the rest so that the conviction for offences under Sections 120 and 121 of the Railways Act and the sentences of fine imposed in that behalf shall stand, alone with the direction that the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days in case the fines are not paid....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1981)4SCC507
A.D. KOSHAL, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs 500, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for a month. It would suffice for the ends of justice to convert the unexpired portion of the substantive sentence of imprisonment into a fine of Rs 1500, so that the sentence imposed upon him, as amended hereby, would be rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone (which is 29 days) and a total fine of Rs 2000. We order accordingly. If the fine is not paid the appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine realised, a sum of Rs 1000 shall be paid to Respondent 1 as compensation.3. With the above modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC678; (1981)3SCC172
1. The only point pressed in this appeal by special leave is that the courts below came to the conclusion that the declaratory decree was held to be collusive without there being any material to prove the same. The High Court was greatly influenced by the fact that in the remarks column possession of appellant Jitendra Pratap Singh was not shown. In our opinion, the Prescribed Authority ought to have gone into this question in detail in view of there being a declaratory decree under Section 229(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as to whether or not the decree was a collusive one. Normally, a decree passed by a competent court is presumed to be a valid decree unless it is shown to be collusive. In the instant case, however, there are two important considerations which seem to have been overlooked by the courts below : (1) that the decree was passed long before the amendment of 1972 in the Ceiling Act, and (2) that the declaratory decree was also passed on July 14, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC382a
R.B. Mishra and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the judgments of the High Court and the trial court and after perusing the Commissioner's report, we find that the compensation fixed by the High Court errs on the side of inadequacy. In view of the Commissioner report and the nature of the trees planted by the appellant, he was entitled to a much higher compensation than the one fixed by the High Court.2. For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed only to this extent that the compensation which the appellant is entitled to is increased to Rs 35,000, as awarded by the trial court. It appears that a sum of Rs 11,800 has already been deposited by the respondents. The respondents are directed to deposit the balance of the amount to make up to Rs 35,000 in the trial court within two months from today. The trial court is directed to conclude the enquiry regarding mesne profits within two months from today as far as prac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC784; 1982(30)BLJR380; 1982CriLJ629; (1982)1GLR497; 1981Supp(1)SCC42
1. This appeal by special leave is confined only to the question of sentence and probation. The learned Sessions Judge was requested to release the appellant on probation having regard to the petty nature of the offence. The Sessions Judge would have accepted the request of the appellant but he was under the impression that under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 a person who was above 21 years of age could not be released on probation. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have overlooked the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act which does not contain any restriction that the offender must be 21 or below that age although this restriction is to be found in Section 6.2. We therefore, allow the appeal to the extent that instead of sentencing the appellant at once to imprisonment, we direct that he may be released on executing a bond of good behaviour for a period of one year and on furnishing two sureties of Rs. 500 each and a personal recognizance bond of the same a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1388; 1981CriLJ1010; 1981(1)SCALE580; 1981Supp(1)SCC22
1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for having committed dacoity along with others in the house of PW 4 Baijnath Prasad.2. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgments of the trial court and the High Court and it is not necessary to repeat the same.3. The central evidence against the appellant consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 who were the servants of complainant PW 4 Baijnath Prasad. It appears from the evidence that Baijnath Prasad was a rich business man of the locality and the accused-appellant Lakshman Prasad was his next door neighbour having a double storey house. Both the courts below have accepted the prosecution case that a dacoity took place in the house of Baijnath Prasad in the course of which cash and other articles were stolen away. In the instant case, counsel for the appellant has not challenged this finding of the courts below. We are also satisfied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1426; (1981)83BOMLR379; 1981(1)SCALE548; (1981)2SCC766; [1981]3SCR300; 1981(13)LC653(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is from an order of the Bombay High Court dated August 24, 1979, granting a temporary injunction restraining the appellant, the United Commercial Bank. By this order the appellant has been restrained from making a recall of a sum of Rs. 85,84,456 paid by it under reserve against the relative bills of exchange drawn against the letter of credit issued by it, from respondent No. 1, the Bank of India, and in terms of the letter of guarantee or indemnity executed by that Bank, in a suit based on a bankers' letter of credit.2. The facts are somewhat complicated, but it is necessary to disentangle the facts to bring out the point of law involved.3. The respondent No. 2, Messrs Godrej Soaps Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs', by a contract dated February 2, 1978 agreed to supply to the respondent No. 3, the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bihar Corporation', one thousand metric tonnes of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1217; 1981CriLJ645; 1981(1)SCALE837a; 1981(Supp)SCC24; 1981(13)LC269(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148 and 307/149, Indian Penal Code. The appellants were convicted under Sections 307/149 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years each and on the charge under Section 148 were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the High Court. Both the High Court and the trial court have concurrently found that Dakshaja Mondal (P.W. 1) and Girija Mondal (P.W. 2) had correctly identified the appellants in the light of the torch held by P.W. 1. The evidence of these two witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of witnesses P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 to whom the witnesses disclosed the names of the appellants.3. The only point argued before us is that as there is no mention of the torch-light in the F.I.R. or in the statements of the witnesses before the Police, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1646; (1981)3SCC10
1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which the conviction of the appellant under Section 409 Indian Penal Code on three counts have been affirmed.2. The facts of the case have been detailed in the Judgments of the trial court and the High Court and it is not necessary to repeat the same.3. According to the prosecution, the appellant who was an overseer was put incharge of tubewells and some open godowns which were attached to those tubewells. These godowns contained cement, bricks and coal. Although the High Court has found that the articles in the godowns were entrusted to the appellant, there is no evidence at all to show that any such entrustment was made. No document in the nature of a list car charge has been shown to show that physical charge of the articles after being regularly counted in the godowns was made over to the appellant. This fact has not been seriously disputed by Mr. Bhat, appearing for the State. In fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1079; 1981(8)ELT325(SC); 1982(2)KarLJ181; 1981(1)SCALE582; (1981)2SCC528; [1981]3SCR294; [1981]47STC359(SC); 1981(13)LC372(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave raises the question whether hypodermic clinical syringes could be regarded as 'glass ware' under Entry No. 39 of the First Schedule to U.P. G Sales Tax Act, 1948 2. The facts giving rise to the question lie in a narrow compass. The appellant firm (hereinafter called the assessee) manufactures and sells hypodermic clinical syringes. For the assessment year 1973-74 the assessee filed a return disclosing net U.P. sales of such syringes at Rs. 95,065. The disclosed turnover was accepted by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector III Muzaffarnagar, but as regards the rate of tax the assessee contended that the clinical syringes in respect of their turnover of Rs. 91,513 up to November 30, 1973 should be regarded as an unclassified item and taxed at the rate of 3 1/2% or at 4% as 'hospital equipment and apparatus' under Entry 44 of the First Schedule to the Act and on the turnover of Rs. 3,552/- for the period from December 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974 at the rate of 7% as...
Tag this Judgment!