Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC753; 1983CriLJ1096; 1983(2)Crimes232(SC); (1983)2GLR1072; 1983(1)SCALE665; (1983)3SCC217; [1983]3SCR280
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. To say at the beginning what we cannot help saying at the end : human goodness has limits-human depravity has none. The need of the hour however, is not exasperation.2. The need of the hour is to mould and evolve the law so as to make it more sensitive and responsive to the demands of the time in order to resolve the basic problem : 'Whether, when, and to what extent corroboration to the testimony of a victim of rape is essential to establish the charge.' And the problem has special significance for the women in India, for, while they have often been idolized, adored, and even worshipped, for ages they have also been exploited and denied even handed justice-Sixty crores anxious eyes of Indian women are therefore focussed on this problem. And to that problem we will presently address ourselves.3. The learned Sessions Judge Mehsana found the appellant, a Government servant employed in the Sachivalaya at Gandhinagar, guilty of serious charges of sexual misbehavior with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1128; 1983(2)SCALE396; (1984)1SCC119; 1984(16)LC57(SC)
ORDER1. These writ petitions Nos. 5310 and 5311 are by two students, Ajit Kumar Jha and Neeraj Sinha of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Ajit Kumar Jha is stated to be a student of M.A. IVth. Semester and Neeraj Sinha is stated to be a terminal M.A. student studying for seminar papers. In the Writ Petitions the notification dated 11. 5. 1983 and circular dated 12.5.1983 asking the students to vacate the hostel rooms within 48 hours of 14th May 1983 are challenged. This notification and the circular were challenged in the High Court of Delhi and the High Court passed an interim order directing the students to submit their representations to the authorities for consideration to stay in the hostel and directed the University authorities to consider those applications. The two petitioners in these writ petitions also made representations. Ajit Kumar Jha has stated in his representation that his admission process for M. Phil in the Oxford University is going on and he has given his hostel a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC742; 1983(1)SCALE775; (1983)4SCC31
D.A. Desai, J.1. Appellants filed a suit for injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 who were the recorded owners of the land bearing Survey No. 32(part) and 33 (part) equal to C.T.S. Nos. 74, 75, 84, 84(1 to 7), 95, 95(1 to 4) of village Kurar, Malad, Bombay admeasuring 8006.04 sq. metres. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 claimed to have entered into partnership with defendants 1 and 2. In this suit a notice of motion was taken out for interim injunction restraining the respondents for interfering in any manner with the possession of the plaintiffs during the pendancy of the suit. Interim injunction appears to have been granted. In an appeal, a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court directed the plaintiffs to file a separate suit in the High Court for declaration of the title and for injunction, whereupon the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the City Civil Court was withdrawn and suit bearing No. 1811 of 1980 was filed on the original side of the Bombay High Court. A notice of motion w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC810; 1983CriLJ1105; 1983(2)Crimes237(SC); 1983(1)SCALE763; (1983)3SCC629; [1983]3SCR268
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 (Act No. 28 of 1970) is filed by two appellants Ramji Surjya Padvi and Bhikji Surjya Padvi accused Nos. 2 and 4 in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1974 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhulia against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 1975 by which it reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court on a charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life on each of them after holding them guilty of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code2. The facts of the case are these : Damji (accussed No 1) Ramji (accussed No. 2) and Bhikji (accused No. 4) are the sons of Surjya Tulya Padvi (accused No. 3). Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are residents of a village called Veri in taluka Akkalkuwa. The said village was by the side of a riv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE700; (1983)3SCC373
Pathak, J.1. The appellant was elected to the Nagal Constituency of the U.P. Legislative Assembly and was declared elected on June 1, 1980. The respondent Hari Ram filed an election petition against the election of the appellant and the High Court, by its judgment and order dated March 3, 1982 declared the election void. The High Court found that the appellant had continued to hold the office of District Extension Educator (Family Planning), an office of profit under the State Government, up to the date fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers and, therefore, he was disqualified from being elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly. Holding that the acceptance of his nomination paper amounted to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution it set aside the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. In this appeal, the appellant contends that the High Court erred in holding that he was disqualified. In our opinion, the appellant i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC680; 1983CriLJ1272; 1983(2)Crimes342(SC); 1983(1)SCALE780; (1983)3SCC327
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Rana Partap, Manmohan alias Pappi and Sat Pal were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal--Manmohan for an offence under Section 302 IPC and Rana Partap and Sat Pal for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, but on appeal by the State, the order of acquittal was reversed and they were convicted under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They have preferred this appeal under the Supreme Court Enlargement of Jurisdiction (criminal) Act.2. Shri A.N. Mulla and Shri Kohli, learned Counsels for the appellants read to us, in extenso, the evidence of all the materialwitnesses as also the judgments of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court. They also addressed to us elaborate arguments. We are satisfied that the High Court did not overstep the bounds of their jurisdiction or side-step the principles to be observed in dealing with appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC817; 1983CriLJ1072; 1983(2)Crimes223(SC); 1983(1)SCALE638; (1983)3SCC335; [1983]3SCR257
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. The three appellants alongwith one Ram Kishan (since acquitted) were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. as also under Sections 218 and 342 I.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1973 but the learned Sessions Judge on an appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the defence acquitted them of all the charges on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences charged. The State of Haryana preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1973 to the High Court challenging the said acquittal and the High Court by its judgment and order dated 22nd November, 1976 allowed the State appeal so far as the three appellants before us are concerned, but confirmed the acquittal of Ram Kishan. The High Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and further convicted the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC643; 1983MhLJ711(SC); 1983(1)SCALE632; (1983)3SCC437; [1983]3SCR237
D.A. Desai, J.1. Land bearing Survey No. 1052 admeasuring 16 acres situated within the revenue limits of Village Sonai Taluka Nawasa Distt. Ahmendnagar, belonged to Tarachand Chopra Janardhan, the father of the respondent was admittedly the tenant of this land on April 1, 1957. Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended from time to time provided that on the 1st day of April, 1957 styled as the tillers' day every tenant shall subject to other provisions of the section and the provisions of the next succeeding sections be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the same date the land held by him as a tenant if other conditions of the section are satisfied. Thus by operation of law, Janardhan, who was the tenant of the land on the tillers' day became the deemed purchaser thereof. Landlord Tarachand died on August 12, 1959. Before his death, landlord Tarachand had executed a will and bequeathed the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC822; 1983(31)BLJR679; 1983CriLJ1077; 1983(2)Crimes228(SC); 1983(1)SCALE627; (1983)3SCC268; [1983]3SCR249
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated December 15, 1980 affirming the order of acquittal passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Krishnarajanagar dated July 10. 1979 acquitting the respondent of an offence punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1980.2. The prosecution case in brief was as follows. On August 25, 1976 at about 12 noon P.W. 1 Syed Ameer, Supervisor, Karnataka Electricity Board, went to the house of the respondent on a routine inspection to check the electric meter installed there. He found the meter board at the entrance and though the meter was not recording consumption of electric engrgy, the lights and fans were on. It appeared that the respondent had tampered with the main connection by fixing two switches to the wall of the house and by operating the switches the lights and fans inside the house could be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC420; (1983)2CompLJ4(SC); 1984(2)ECC102; 1983LC653D(SC); 1983(12)ELT869(SC); 1983MhLJ539(SC); 1983(1)SCALE521; (1983)4SCC210; [1984]1SCR347; 1983(14)ELT1896(SC)
ORDER1. We make the following order for reasons which we shall give later :(A) The position prior to the amendment of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by Act XXII of 1973:The value of excisable article for determining the excise duty leviable on it under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 shall be taken to be:(i) The price at which the excisable article is sold by the assessee to a buyer at arm's length in the course of wholesale trade at the time and place of removal; (ii) Where the excisable article is not sold by the assessee in wholesale trade, the price at which the excisable article or an article of the like kind and quality is capable of being sold in wholesale trade at the time and place of removal; (iii) Where the excisable article or an article of the like kind and quality is not sold in wholesale trade at the place of removal, that is, at the factory gate, but is sold in the wholesale trade at a place outside the factory gate, the price at which the exci...
Tag this Judgment!