Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1981)4SCC432
D.A. Desai and; R.B. Misra, JJ.1. We have heard learned counsel Mr R.L. Kohli for the appellants and learned counsel Mr N.K. Agarwal for the respondent State. Balmukund filed Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1974 against his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for seven years respectively. Appellant Gunna alias Gur Narayan filed Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1974 against his conviction for an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both these appeals were filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. There was also a third appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1974, by the other three accused who were tried at the same trial, but none of them has appealed to this Court and, therefore, we are not concerned with them in this matter. Even though Balmukund and Gunna alias Gur Narayan preferred separate appeals in the High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1150; [1981(43)FLR326]; (1981)4SCC168; 1981(13)LC705(SC)
ORDERD.A. Desai, J.1. Frustration generated by lengthening shadows of interminable Court processes in the fall of one's life, has been the primary and root cause of our failure to end this unending. proceeding And it has introduced such cynicism in the respondent that even though the Court offered him Rs. 46151.60 deposited in this Court by the appellant pursuant to Court's order dated January 27, 1981, keeping all his contentions open the respondent declined to withdraw the amount and walked away from the Court. The sense of guilt is further accentuated by the fact that the respondent would not accept any legal assistance, presumably his faith in the legal profession has suffered total erosion. Add to this that he is completely hard of hearing so that any dialogue at the Court hearing is an exercise in futility. To depict our agony in no uncertain terms, we requested Dr. Y.S. Chitaley, Senior Counsel of this Court to assist the respondent who brusquely turned down the same. We request...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1705; 1981(Supp)SCC84
ORDERY.V. Chandrachud, C.J. 1. Heard counsel. Special leave granted.2. The circumstances of the case are very sad and touching. A desolate woman jumped into a well with her two children. She was charged under Sections 307 and 309 of the Penal Code. She has been released on admonition for the offence under Section 309 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307. We see no valid reason for making this distinction and therefore direct that she shall be released on admonition for the offence under Section 307 also. She need not surrender to her bail....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC775; (1981)4SCC154
ORDER1. Heard Counsel. Special leave granted. 2. The respondent Madan Lal Jain, filed an application for grant of a lease of laterite deposits in the village Bodda, district Palamau. That application was rejected by the State Government on Nov. 21, 1972. The respondent filed a revision application to the Central Government, which, by an order dated Nov. 8, 1974 directed the State Government to grant the lease in conformity with its order. Even after the order of Central Government, the State Government did not grant the lease to the respondent.3. The case of the State Government is that the lease was not granted to the respondent because he was in large arrears of rent. So far as this question is concerned, the High Court has observed in its judgment dated Dec. 7, 1979 in the writ petition filed by the respondent, that the arrears 'seem to be of a period subsequent to 1972 when the petitioner , had filed a petition for grant of a lease,' the State Government has ample powers to recover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1672; 1981(3)SCALE1151; (1981)4SCC171
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Shri Kumar Rajarathnam, learned Counsel, who presented the detenu's case with clarity, argued that the detention of the appellant was vitiated by the delay in the consideration of his representation by the Government and by the delay of the grant of a hearing to him by the Advisory Board. On an examination of the material placed before us we find that there has been no delay about which any legitimate complaint can be made. The detenu made his representation on May 11, 1981. The representation was examined and rejected by the Government on May 15, 1981. On May 15, 1981, reference was made to the Advisory Board and on May 21, 1981, the Advisory Board directed the production of the detenu before them on June 2, 1981. This direction was given pursuant to the request of the detenu. The detenu was produced before the Advisory Board on June 2, 1981 and on June 3, 1981, the Advisory Board tendered its advice to the Government. We are unable to find any avoidable delay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1753; [1983]53CompCas445(SC); 1981(3)SCALE1154; (1981)3SCC566; [1982]1SCR288
P.N. Bhagwati J.1. This is a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus for securing the release of one Hasnain Mukhtar Hussain Lakdawala (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) who has been detained by the Government of Maharashtra under an order of detention dated 31st December 1980 made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA. This order of detention though dated 31st December 1980 was served on the detenu on 17th January 1981 and alongwith the order of detention, a communication, also dated 31st December 1980, was served on the detenu containing the grounds of detention. The Government of Maharashtra also served on the detenu at the same time a letter dated 7th January 1981 enclosing copies of the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention. It appears that on 6th February 1981 the advocate of the detenu addressed a letter to the Superinten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1675; 1981CriLJ1273; 1983(13)ELT1661(SC); 1981(3)SCALE1161; (1981)3SCC610; [1982]1SCR299
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. It is one of the sad and distressing features of our criminal justice system that an accused person, resolutely minded to delay the day of reckoning, may quite conveniently and comfortably do so, if he can but afford the cost involved, by journeying back and forth, between the Court of first instance and the superior Courts, at frequent interlocutory stages. Applications abound to quash investigations, complaints and charges on all imaginable grounds, depending on the ingenuity of client and counsel. Not infrequently, as soon as a court takes cognizance of a case requiring sanction or consent to prosecute, the sanction or consent is questioned as improperly accorded, so soon as a witness is examined or a document produced, the evidence is challenged as illegally received and many of them are taken up to the High Court and some of them reach this Court too on the theory that 'it goes to the root of the matter'. There are always petitions alleging 'assuming the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1668; (1981)4SCC202
ORDER1. When Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1900 of 1981 came up for hearing before us on 27th April, 1981, we made an order directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to inform the Court as to how many centers have been set up in Etawah district under the Model Scheme for Carcass Utilisation at village panchayat level Annexure II to the affidavit in reply filed by Sh. Ram Naresh Pande, where they are situated, what are the activities which are being carried out by these centers and what is the extent of such activities and how many persons are taking advantage of these centers. It is surprising that though a period of more than three months has elapsed, the State of Uttar Pradesh has not supplied this information to us. We fail to understand this inaction on the part of the State Government in complying with the order of the Court. The only inference which we can draw from the failure of the State Government to give us this information is that the Model Scheme for Carcass Utilisation at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981(3)SCALE1166; (1981)4SCC113; 1981(13)LC714(SC)
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J. 1. In pursuance of two orders dated 11th October, 1976 passed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16E of the Tea Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (for short, the Corporation) took over the management of the whole of two units known as Pashok Tea Estate and Looksan Tea Estate, both owned by the Pashok Tea Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company). The legality of the orders was challenged by the Company through two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court, a learned Single Judge of which accepted both of them by a judgment dated 9th April 1979. The Union of India and the Corporation re-agitated the matter in separate appeals which were, however, dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court whose judgment dated 2nd July 1980 is now sought to be reversed by the Union of India in Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1673; 1981(3)SCALE1149; (1981)3SCC592; [1982]1SCR283; 1981(13)LC884(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, Dr. R.K. Khandelwal, is entitled to be admitted to the M. D. Course in Paediatrics of the Agra University and whether in denying him that opportunity, the State has violated any of his legal rights.2. The appellant passed his M.B.B.S. Examination from the S. N. Medical College, Agra, in December 1976 and completed his internship in December 1977. Being desirous of prosecuting post-graduate studies in Paediatrics, he took a year's house-job in the Paediatrics Department of the S. N. Medical College Hospital, which he completed in January 1979. He then applied for admission to the M. D. Course in Paediatrics for the academic year 1979-80. He was admitted to the D.C.H. Course but he was refused admission to the M.D. Course on two grounds: First, that amongst the applicants for the M. D. Course in Paediatrics there were four students who had secured higher marks than him in the M.B...
Tag this Judgment!