Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1886; 1985CriLJ354; 1984(2)Crimes750(SC); 1984(2)SCALE593; 1984Supp(1)SCC424; [1985]1SCR862
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. It is necessary to record this short order so that it may be known as to what an incredible amount of ingenuity is exercised by the people to secure false acquittals.2. A person by the name of Kunwar Bahadur was murdered in the village of Bamori Kalan, District Jalaun, on July 18, 1971. The appellants were convicted for that murder and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.3. On June 2, 1983, a dead body was found in Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. A letter purported to have been written by one Kunwar Bahadur was recovered from the person of the deceased. On the next day, June 3, 1983, a Hindi daily called 'Nav Bharat' carried a news item to the effect that the dead body of one Kunwar Bahadur Singh was found in Vidisha in suspicious circumstances and that the letter which was recovered from the person of the deceased showed that he was repentant. This news item is alleged to have come to the notice of the relatives of the appellants, who contacted the Vidisha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC336; 1985CriLJ657; 1985(1)Crimes205(SC); 1984(2)SCALE787; [1985]1SCR859; 1985(17)LC361(SC)
Y.V Chandrachud, C.J.1. Four persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The learned Judge acquitted three out of the four accused and convicted only one of them, namely, Kanahiya Lal. The High Court of Rajasthan confirmed the conviction of Kanahiya Lal, as also the acquittal of two out of the three persons who were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The High Court, however, set aside the acquittal of the appellant, convicted him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.2. Since the High Court has set aside an order of acquittal and has sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, it is necessary to consider whether two views of the evidence are reasonably possible and whether, the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant. Having approached the case and assessed the evidence from that point...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1805; [1984(49)FLR424]; 1986LabIC374; (1984)IILLJ517SC; 1984(2)SCALE428; (1984)4SCC635; [1985]1SCR866; 1984(2)SLJ492(SC); 1985(17)LC465(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Appellant Rajinder Kumar Kindra was inducted as a peon by M/s. Raymond Woolen Mills. Ltd. ('employer' for short). In 1972 he was promoted as a Salesman and at the relevant time he was serving at the Raymond's retail show-room in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. One Shri R.S. Negi was the Manager-cum-Cashier of the Karol Bagh Show-room of the employer under whom the appellant was working. He was served with a charge-sheet dated December 11, 1975 which reads as under :That you, Shri Rajinder Kindra, is hereby informed that you, while working as a salesman at Raymonds' Retail Show-room, 2397/1, Hardhlan Singh Road, New Delhi-5 have misappropriated cash and funds from the amounts of Raymonds' Woolen Mills Ltd., to the extent of Rs. 32,196/88 or a part thereof during the period 10.6.75 to 17.10.75 by manipulating false accounts, submitted bogus cheques into the Mills (Account or by taking cash from the chest of the Retail Depot along with Shri R.S. Negi, Manager-cum-Cashier of Ramond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC18; 1985CriLJ487; 1984(2)Crimes766(SC); 1984(2)SCALE529; (1984)4SCC400; [1985]1SCR843
Sabyasachl Mukharji, J.1. Shri Ram Narain Dixit in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the detention of Ajay Dixit, his son in the District Jail of Agra, under the National Security Act, 1980. The District Magistrate, Agra passed a detention order and served on Ajay Dixit hereinafter called the detenu under Section 3 of The National Security Act, hereinafter called the Act, on six different grounds. The grounds mentioned therein are as follows :1. That on 10.4.1981 at 10.30 p.m. you alongwith your companions surrounded Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sharma resident of Ferozepur and fired at him with the intention of killing him but he escaped slightly. In this connection a case under Section 307 of I.P.C. was lodged with the Police Station and is pending the trial in the court against you.2. That on dated 27.9.82 at 3.10 p.m. you collected goondas in your house in the town of Ferozabad and when the police party reached in order to arrest the goondas you fired at the police...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1897; [1984(49)FLR433]; 1984LabIC1682; (1984)IILLJ503SC; 1984(2)SCALE422; 1984Supp(1)SCC418; [1985]1SCR816; 1985(17)LC121(SC)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal by Special Leave is whether the Government of a State can be treated as the 'appropriate Government' Under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in relation to any industrial dispute concerning the office of the Regional Provident Fund organisation established by the Central Government for that State under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Provident Funds Act').2. The facts of the case are these : The Government of Karnataka made a reference Under Section 10 of the Act referring a certain dispute between the Regional Provident Fund organisation established under the Provident Funds Act for the State of Karnataka and its employees to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore and the said reference came to be registered as A.I.D. 3 of 1979 on the file of the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the Regional ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1780; 1985(6)ECC193; 1985(19)ELT5(SC); [1984]150ITR648(SC); 1984(2)SCALE545; 1984Supp(1)SCC490; [1985]1SCR825; [1985]58STC1(SC); 1985(17)LC167(SC)
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.1. The question of constitutional validity of the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Mysore Act of 1969), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) falls for determination in these two appeals preferred by the appellants with certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.2. The question arises under the following circumstances :-The appellants are Excise Contractors who had secured excise privilege of retail sale of Toddy, Arrack or Special Liquor. The State Government has the monopoly of the first sale of Arrack which is country liquor other than Toddy. The manufacture of Arrack by distillation is done in the State under State control and the entire quantity manufactured by distillation in the State is sold to the State Government which in its turn supplies Arrack to bonded depots in Taluks. Under the Mysore Excise Act, Arrack is liable to excise duty at the rates prescribed by the Government. The State does not collect excise dut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC337; [1985(50)FLR68]; (1985)ILLJ523SC; 1984(2)SCALE768; [1985]1SCR856; 1985(17)LC260(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. Respondent 1 was appointed as an Agent of the appellant-Bank, which is a co-operative society registered under and governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. By an order dated June 5, 1968 passed by one S.P. Jain, the services of respondent 1 were terminated on the ground that he had over-stayed the leave granted to him.2. Aggrieved by that order, respondent 1 raised a dispute under Section 55(2) of the Act, before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The Registrar referred the matter to the Deputy Registrar, who by an order dated February 27, 1972, allowed the claim of respondent 1 on the ground that the order terminating the services was not in accordance with Rule 44 and 45 of the Co-operative Bank Employees Service Rules. He also ordered the reinstatement of respondent 1 with full back salary and allowances. In an appeal filed by the Bank, the Addl. Registrar took the view that the only remedy which was open t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1789; 1984(2)SCALE437; (1984)4SCC376; [1985]1SCR808; 1985(17)LC247(SC)
Misra J.1. The present appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 7th April, 1978 reversing the judgment and decree of the two courts below and dismissing the suit.2. The appellants filed a suit for declaration of their right to take water from their exclusive well marked W. 1 in the site plan attached with the plaint and situate in a plot of land exclusively belonging to them, through a portion of a channel to their plots at survey Nos. 95 and 96 lying to the north of the common well W. 2 in the joint land of the parties and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiff's right to take water from W. 1 through the aforesaid channel.3. The parties are descendants from a common ancestor and they owned joint properties. A partition took place between the parties in or about 1927 whereunder survey Nos. 95 and 96 fell to the shar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1870; 1984(2)SCALE518; (1984)4SCC516B; [1985]1SCR787; [1985]58STC23(SC); 1985(17)LC445(SC)
Desai, J.1. Whether the whole includes the parts is the core question. Whether legume, whole grain, when notified as a 'specified agricultural produce' within the meaning of the expression in Section 2(t) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 ('Act' for short) would also comprehend its split folds or parts, commercially called dal so as to enable Mandi Samiti (Market Committee for convenience of reference) to levy market fee Under Section 17 of the Act on the transaction of sale of dal of legumes specified in the schedule to the Act, is the narrow question that falls to be determined in this group of appeals.2. Appellant Market Committee levied market fee on the transaction of sale of dal of various legumes by the respondents, asserting that they were specified agricultural produce and the transactions of sale in respect of them by the respondents in the Market Area would be exigible to the levy of market fee. The respondents contended that they were manufacturing in their f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984LabIC1712; 1984(2)SCALE543; (1985)1SCC43; 1985(17)LC235(SC)
ORDER1. The present petition is a sequel to our judgment in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Ors. v. Union of India : (1984)ILLJ314SC While allowing Writ Petition and Review Petition a number of directions were given in that judgment in relation to the contentions raised before the Court.2. By the present petition, the petitioner contends that the directions given by the Court have not been carried out and further directions are necessary to give full effect to the judgment of this Court. It may be clarified that a petition for directions and not for contempt has been moved. We propose to take note of the legitimate grievances convassed on behalf of the petitioners by their learned Counsel Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad.3. The first grievance voiced is that Dr. Y.P. Gupta was at all material times senior to Dr. S.L. Mehta and that Dr. S.L. Mehta, illegally scored a march over him. This Court directed that Dr. Y.P. Gupta will be put in the same scale in which Dr. S.L. Mehta was put right from the very d...
Tag this Judgment!